(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Minutes"

DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT! 






■I 



CLOSED 
STACKS 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 



Not to be taken From the Library 

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION CENTER 

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



,MAY 10 1V>6 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiihiiiiiiii nun 111 
3 1223 03476 4135 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/1minutes1986sanf 



c 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



MINUTES 



JANUARY 7, 1986 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
FEB 4 1986 

SAfJ FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A. TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

January 7, 1986 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 


D. 




SPECIAL ITEM: 



Resolution 
Number Page 



1 Consideration of United 

Airlines Petition to the 
Airports Commission to 
Allow International Depart- 
ures from the North Terminal 
Domestic Facility 9-22 

E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Rules and Regulations on 

Recirculating Traffic 4 

3. Report on Revision of 
Rules and Regulations 
Governing Ground Trans- 
portation 4-5 

4. Supplemental Noise Regu- 
lation to Resolution 

78-0131 5 

F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 5-6 

G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION 

OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE: 

5. Resolution Rescinding 
Previously Adopted Airports 
Commission Resolution 

Nos. 85-0331 and 85-0352 86-0001 6 

6. Professional Services 
Agreement - Steve Gregory - 

$20,000.00 86-0003 6 



4 37123 SF: ECONO JRS 

41 SF 04/12/96 176 - 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

7. Retirement Resolution - 

James J. Walsh, Jr. 86-0003 7 

8. Modification of Agreement 
with Grieg W. Harvey - 

$4,500.00 86-0004 7 

9. Completion of Professional 
Services Agreement with 

Villalobos and Associates 86-0005 7 

10. Resolution Approving the 
Schematic Design for the 
Sunglass Kiosk in the North 

Terminal Hub 86-0006 7 

11. Liability Insurance Rate 
Adjustment: Shuttle Bus 

Service 86-0007 7 

12. Host Rental Credit - Utility 
Installation South Terminal 

Rotunda 86-0008 7 

13. Host Rental Credit - Electrical 
Service to South Terminal 

Temporary Cafeteria 86-0009 7 

14. Resolution Authorizing Rental 
Credit for North Terminal 

Hosiery and Lingerie Shop 86-0010 8 

15. Price Increase Approval - 

Sanitary Products 86-0011 8 

16. Statistical Adjustments for 
1985-86 Joint Use Billings 
Under Lease and Use Agree- 
ment 86-0012 8 

I. PUBLIC HEARING: 

17. Hearing on Airports Commission 

Budget for Fiscal Year 1986/87 " 8 

J. CORRESPONDENCE: 8 

L. ADJ0UNRMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 22 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 2 



MINUTES 

of the 

AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

January 7, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The meeting of the regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called 
to order at 9:00 AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 

Absent: 



Z.L. Goosby 

J. Edward Fleishell 

Athena Tsougarakis 

Morris Bernstein, President 
William K. Coblentz, Vice President 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
85-0369 regarding the settlement of a 
litigated claim, and, 85-0370 modify- 
ing the agreement with Morrison and 
Foerster to Include the rendering of 
advice and handling of litigation 
concerning noise control regulations 
at the closed session of December 17, 
1985. 



Discussion of item #1 was held over to the end of the meeting, 



Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that at 6:00 AM this 
morning an Arco tanker truck carrying about 80 to 100 gallons of fuel hit 
the divider going southbound on highway 101, rupturing the tanks and spill- 
ing fuel onto the highway. He said that the fuel was ignited by some 
other source, possibly on-coming cars. As a result of the accident and 
fire highway 101 has been shut-down in both directions since that time. 
He explained that this has caused a tremendous traffic jam reaching as far 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 3 



South on 101 as highway 92; highway 380 is also closed to the Airport. He 
said that some flights have gotten out, specifically, those flights where 
crews were in hotels overnight in the vicinity of the Airport. He said 
that it is expected that there will be a lot of flight delays. He said 
that all of the Airport's nighttime employees have been held over; day 
shift employees are starting to trickle in, but it's a long, difficult 
access into the Airport. Mr. Turpen said that North-bound 101 should open 
up within the hour, but South-bound 101 is not expected to open up until 
noon or later as the roadway is going to have to be resurfaced. 



D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Rules and Regulations on Recirculating Traffic 

A summary of comments resulting from 
the December 3, 1985 public hearing on 
the proposed amendment to the Airports 
Commission's Rules and Regulations 
relating to recirculating traffic is 
presented. The item is not being 
presented for adoption at this time. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff was recommending at this time that the 
Commission not act on the results of the December 3, 1985 public 
hearing until such time as the Airport's landside transportation plan 
has been thoroughly reviewed. He said that several of our non-per- 
mitted operators have agreed to voluntarily curtail their use of the 
Airport roadways most, specifically with respect to recirculating 
traffic. In view of this, staff would like the opportunity to take a 
look at it over a period of 60 days and return to the Commission with 
a comprehensive package which would not only address this problem but 
might include certain rules on recirculating traffic. He added that 
at this point he would like to see what a voluntary effort will get 
us. 



Report on Revision of Rules and Regulations Governing Ground 
Transportation. 

Report setting forth proposed 
revisions of Rules and Regulations 
governing ground transportation to be 
submitted for consideration by the 
Airports Commission at its January 21, 
1986 meeting. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport is presently looking at some new 
rules and regulations for ground transportion. The memorandum to the 
Commission specifically outlines some of the things that we will be 
considering and presenting to the Commission. He said that one will 
be a requirement that all ground transportation operators at the 
Airport have an operating permit. He said that this permit would 
Include a restriction on headways; a requirement that all prearranged 
pickups be evidenced by a waybill in possession of the driver; that a 
fee be paid to the Airport and would set forth specific penalties for 
violation of permit and rule requirements Including suspension and 
revocation of permission to operate at the Airport. Mr. Turpen said 
that these are generic categories of items that we will be 
considering in the next 60 days as we evaluate our voluntary effort 
of persons to control some of the vehicular traffic on a non-per- 
mitted basis. He said that he intends to return to the Commission. 



Minutes, January 7, 1986. Page 4 



most likely with a Director's Report, within the next 60 days 
followed by a public hearing and then an appropriate amendment of the 
rules and regulations. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the report will include a brief survey 
of how Los Angeles and some of the other airports are handling ground 
transportation. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that information could be included, 
however, at this point, Los Angeles, San Diego, Denver, and Chicago 
have come to this Airport to see how we handle it. He said that 
they've had a lot less success than we've had in controlling ground 
transportation at their facilities. 



Supplemental Noise Regulation to Resolution 78-0131 

Mr. Turpen said that in 1978 the Airports Commission adopted 
Resolution 78-0131, the Airports Noise Abatement Resolution. That 
resolution formed a basis for our noise mitigation efforts and the 
Airport's noise plan. He said that the Federal Aviation Adminis- 
tration is currently conducting hearings to consider various changes 
to its noise certification regulations. The FAA is promoting a 
program which is designed to reduce from operation those noisier 
aircraft. Mr. Turpen felt that Airport staff should be looking at, 
and recommending to the Commission, a supplemental noise regulation 
which would go hand in hand with regulation 78-0131 and look to the 
future in terms of further reductions in aircraft-generated noise. 

Mr. Turpen said that this report simply identifies for the Commission 
early on that we will be looking at three specific things: 1) estab- 
lishing a future date for a total ban on the operation of Stage 2, 
Part 36 aircraft at San Francisco International; 2) a reduction of 
Stage 2 operations during the night time hours presently, 2:00 AM to 
5:00 AM, and gradually increasing this prohibition from 10:00 PM to 
to 7 AM, as defined by the California Airport Noise Standard; and, 3) 
establishing a date after which the entry of any new type Stage 2 
certificated carrier would be prohibited. 

Mr. Turpen said he will return to the Commission with thoughts on 
this. He said it is important for the Commission to solicit testi- 
mony as to the impact this might have on the airline community 
operating at the Airport. Mr. Turpen said he intends to return to 
the Commission in February with a basic draft regulation for the 
Commission's review. A public hearing on this subject will be 
seheduled in February or March. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the 707 fell under this category. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Q707 is presently prohibited from 
operating at SFO under existing Airport's Commission resolution 
78-0131. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fleishell said, with regard to the report on the 
unauthorized discharge of firearms, that the man confessed and he 
did not understand what we are investigating? 

Commissioner Tsougarakis commented that the Fire Department is 
conducting an investigation. 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 5 



Commissioner Fleishell asked if the Airport had a rule or law 
prohibiting this sort of activity on the Airport. If we do, has the 
man been charged; and if he has not, why not? 

Mr. Turpen responded that the matter is in the hands of the San Mateo 
Di strict Attorney. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the cover letter does not indicate 
that, nor does the f i le. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

5. Resolution Rescinding Previously Adopted Airports Commission 
Resolution Nos. 85-0331 and 85-0352 

No. 86-0001 Resolution rescinding Airports 

Commission Resolution 85-0331 which 
awarded a long-term ground lease of 
Plot 50A to The FLying Tiger Line, 
Inc. and further rescinding Airports 
Commission Resolution No. 85-0352 
which authorized Tax-Exempt Bond 
Financing for the development of said 
parcel . 



6. Professional Services Agreement - Steve Gregory - $20,000.00 

No. 86-0002 Resolution approving and authorizing 

agreement with Steve Gregory for 
professional services at a cost not 
to exceed $20,000.00. 

Mr. Turpen explained that this relates to the computerized parking 
control system and to the parking control contract with Autoscan. He 
said that Autoscan breached the contract and the issue is now a 
matter of litigation. Mr. Turpen said it is important to retain Mr. 
Gregory's services as a consultant to the Airport to assist In 
reconstructing the events leading up to the breach. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the agreement does not show how he 
is to be paid. He asked if Mr. Gregory will be paid by the hour, or 
by the result. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded that Mr. 
Gregory will be paid by the hour. 

Commissioner Fleishell said it was not included the information he 
had. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that it is in the contract and the contract 
is attached. The rate is $50.00 an hour, not to exceed $20,000.00. 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 6 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

7. Retirement Resolution: 
James J. Walsh, Jr. 

No. 86-0003 



8. Modification to Agreement with Grieg W. Harvey - $4,500.00 

No. 86-0004 Resolution to approve Modification No. 

1 to agreement with Grieg W. Harvey to 
increase fees payable by $4,500.00 to 
a total sum of $12,500.00. 



Completion of Professional Services Agreement with Villalobos and 
Associates 

No. 86-0005 Resolution accepting the corrosion 

survey under Professional Services 
Agreement with Villalobos and 
Associates, Controller's No. CT82013, 
as satisfactorily completed. 



10. Resolution Approving the Schematic Design for the Sunglass Kiosk in 
the North Terminal Hub 

No. 86-0006 Resolution approving the schematic 

design and authorizing the construc- 
tion of the Sunglass Kiosk in the 
North Terminal Hub. 



11. Liability Insurance Rate Adjustment: 
Shuttle Bus Service 

No. 86-0007 Annual rate adjustments to the shuttle 

Bus Service Agreement for cost 
increases due to liability insurance 
coverage as required by the contract. 



12. Host Rental Credit - Utility Installation South Terminal Rotunda 

No. 86-0008 Resolution apporoving rent credit to 

Host in the amount of $3,351.24 for 
costs incurred to provide electrical 
and telephone service to merchandize 
space in the South Terminal Rotunda. 



13. Host Rental Credit - Electrical Service to South Terminal Temporary 
Cafeteria 

No. 86-0009 Resolution approving rent credit to 

Host in the amount of $11,841.25 for 
costs incurred to provide electrical 
service to the premises of the interim 
cafeteria in the South Terminal. 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 7 



14. Resolution Authorizing Rental Credit for North Terminal Hosiery and 
Lingerie Shop 



No. 86-0010 



Resolution granting rental credit to 
North Terminal Hosiery and Lingerie 
Shop for work performed on behalf of 
Airport. 



15. Price Increase Approval - Sanitary Products 



No. 86-0011 



Resolution approving increase in price 
of sanitary products purchased from 
City-owned vending machines located in 
the women's restrooms throughout the 
Airport terminals. 



6. Statistical Adjustments for 1985-86 Joint Use Billings Under Lease 
and Use Agreements 



No. 86-0012 



Resolution adjusting for 1985-86 Join 
Use Billings pursuant to Section 101. W 
of the Airline-Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Air West International, 
Inc. , dba Air Hawaii . 



I. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing was opened at 9:14 AM and closed at 9:16 AM, there 
being no testimony from the public. 

17. Hearing on Airports Commission Budget for Fiscal year 1986/87 

Mr. Turpen said he received a call from Mr. Paul Van Wert, Chairman 
of the Airline Affairs Committee and Mr. Chamberlain this morning 
who, unfortunately because of the traffic congestion at the Airport, 
were not able to get downtown. He said that staff has been working 
with the airlines on the budget and they would like an opportunity, 
if appropriate, to address the Commission. He said that the public 
hearing can be conducted today and the budget can be calendared for 
approval on January 21st. Mr. Turpen explained that the budget Is 
due in the Mayor's Office on February 1st. The airlines have agreed 
and understand that on the 21st they would have an opportunity to 
make their comments if, In this interim period, any details or 
problems can't be worked out. 

Mr. Turpen asked if anyone present wished to comment on the budget. 

No one wished to address the Commission. 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 8 



The following is a verbatim transcript of Item 1 on the January 7, 1986 
Airports Commission calendar. 

D. SPECIAL ITEM: 

1. Consideration of United Air Lines Petition to the Airports Commission 
to Allow International Departures from the North Terminal Domestic 
Faci 1 ity 

Commissioner Goosby: If you want to say anything in preface to the 
testimony on Item No. 1, Lou. 

Mr. Turpen: Well, I know that Mr. Van Wert had hoped to be available 
along with Mr. Steers and Mr. Wayne and were, as I indicated earlier, 
precluded by circumstances. 

Item No. 1 really considers the petition of United Airlines to 
relocate two specific flights from the International Terminal to the 
North Terminal domestic facility; those flights being currently 
designated as Pan AM 5, which operates to Hong Kong and Pan AM 11, 
which operates to Tokyo. United Airlines had asked the Airports 
Commission to permit those flights to operate from Gates 80 and 82 1n 
the North Terminal, being relocated from the International Terminal. 

The Commission has a policy that all flights requiring federal 
inspection facilities must arrive and depart from the International 
Terminal. The Airports Commission constructed the International 
Terminal with that concept in mind and therefore has asked me to 
schedule this item so that the Commission might take public testimony 
in order to evaluate that testimony and arrive at a decision as to 
whether or not United Airlines should be granted this request for 
waiver from our policy of requiring flights to operate from the 
International Terminal. With that I would respond to any question 
the Airports Commission has or defer to anyone in the audience who 
would like to speak to this subject. 

Commissioner Goosby: We have a number of speakers. Joe Lyons. 

Joe Lyons of Duty Free: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, 
good morning. We appreciate the opportunity to address the 
Commission on the economic impact of the proposed United move. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: Excuse me for just a moment. Could I 
suggest that... I hate to do this... but that you put 1t off to the 
side (referring to a chart) so that members of the public can see 
because this is a public hearing. 

We can see it from there. That's great. Thank you. That's 
perfect. Can you work with that. 

Joe Lyons: Sure. No problem. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to present to you this morning 
the economic impact on both the Duty Free and Principal Merchandise 
Concession within the International Terminal should United Airlines 
be granted permission to depart to the Pacific from the gates in the 
North Terminal. The presentation that we have developed this morning 
is based upon a letter of 11 November, submitted to Mr. Lou Turpen 
and Airport Management, which describes the economic impact of the 

Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 9 



proposed move on both of the concessions. What we have done this 
morning is taken the main headings of that letter and placed them on 
the chart on the right so that you can follow along with us and have 
points of reference as we go through the presentation. 

Making the presentation this morning will be Gary Hahn, Tom Adams, 
and myself from Duty Free Shoppers, and Paul Laveroni , our San 
Francisco outside counsel who will speak to the legal framework. We 
have also here members of the minority subtenants to the principal 
merchandise concessions - they would like the opportunity to speak 
on the economic impact which would occur on their own concessions. 

By way of introduction, Tom Adams and myself are from the corporate 
office headquartered here in San Francisco. We spent a good part of 
1982 working on the bids for both the Duty Free and Principal 
Merchandise Concessions. Gary Hahn is the general manager; he has 
been here since August 1983 and arrived just in time for the opening 
of both the Duty Free and the Principal Merchandise Concession shops 
in the International Terminal. We have a fairly detailed presenta- 
tion and we would appreciate, and think it would be best, to hold any 
questions until the end of the presentation as many of the points 
which will come up will be answered as we go through the charts. 



Commissioner Goosby: We have read the letters, too, so brevity would 
be appreciated. 



Joe Lyons: Well, let me move very quickly then to the agenda. We 
have legal framework, key elements of the Duty Free and the Principal 
Concession, impact of the relocation, the loss of sales/increase in 
concession fees as a percentage of sales on Duty Free and on the 
Principal Concession, the new capital investment and facilities and 
inventory which will be required, the new operating expense which 
will accrue to the concession, and, finally I will summarize the 
points on the agenda and will ask my subtenants to comment on their 
own operations. So I would like at this stage to turn to Paul 
Laveroni who will discuss the legal framework. 



Paul Laveroni: Good morning Commissioners. I will not exceed the 
three minute rule. I think the legal framework has been set forth 
for you by our view in a memorandum which we developed and delivered 
on January 3rd. I only wish to make a couple of, I think, signifi- 
cant points. 

First of all, I don't think there is any dispute that this Commission 
has the power to regulate the Airport in terms of departures and 
arrivals flights. The statutory authorities are clear, the chart is 
clear and, I might say, that the actions of all the parties concerned 
cknowledge the Commission's power In this regard. United Airlines of 
course has the obligation under their lease and in the agreement with 
the City to obey the rules and regulations of this Commission. All 
the concessionaires, in their lease, agree to obey the reasonable 
rules and regulations of the Commission and United, by its action in 
bringing this petition, acknowledges this Commission's power to 
either grant or deny its petition. So I really don't think that the 
first two points are in controversy. What I want to point out is 
that both the Charter and the lease provisions as to United and to 
Duty Free Shoppers and the other concessionaires, there is one 
standard that applies uniform- ally and that is reasonableness. The 
Commission can make reasonable rules and regulations and the parties 
are bound to obey those reasonable rules and regulations. So both as 
an executive body regulating the Airport and as a landlord, the 
Commission has only the standard of reasonableness to meet. 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 10 



The denial of the petition, that is the refusal to allow United to 
depart in the North Terminal, would be imminently reasonable for any 
number of reasons which are set forth in our memorandum and in the 
letter of Duty Free Shoppers to this Commission. On the other hand, 
the grant of that petition would be manifestly unreasonable, both on 
a policy ground and on a legal ground. On a policy ground, because 
it would mean the unravelling of the Master Plan of this Airport and 
lead, inevitably, to the kind of crazy quilt system that is prevalent 
in such airports as JFK, where there are arrivals and departures from 
all kinds of terminals, and the attendant security problems, 
inconvenience and congestion that inevitably arrives at those kinds 
of airports, which this Airport has largely managed to avoid because 
of the International Terminal. Secondly, it's clear that if United 
is allowed to depart from the North Terminal it's international 
flights, that would frustrate the very object of the lease between 
the City and the concessionaires. . .Duty Free Shoppers, and the other 
concessionaires. A whole basis for those leases was that their 
operation would be centered in the International Terminal and the 
international flights would depart from that terminal. That would 
lead, in the case of Duty Free Shoppers, to frustration and severe 
economic damage, which the speakers will speak to this morning. In 
terms of minority subtenants, it would mean economic ruin. 

So for those reasons, in bare outline, I submit to you that on a 

legal basis United Airlines cannot be permitted to move to the North 

Terminal and depart from the North Terminal. On a policy basis it 

would mean the total dismanteling of the Airport's Master Plan. 
Thank you. 



Gary Hahn: I'm going to review the key elements of both our Duty 
Free concession and our News/Gift Principal Concession. First, the 
Duty Free: you can see the term is six (6) years. We have 
facilities of slightly more than 6,400 square feet. We have three 
selling locations: a main shop which is slightly less than 4,400 
square feet; a fast shop, 1,200 square feet, which is just past 
security screening; and a gate shop, 133 square feet located between 
gates 54 and 55. The fact that we have three (3) locations in the 
International Terminal is key since a relocation of these flights to 
North would mean that we'd have only one selling unit in the North 
Terminal . 

As you can see our investment is considerable. The rental is 
$15,000,000 over the six year term for 15% of sales. In 1984 our 
sales were $14,751,000 and of that figure, Pan Am passengers on the 
two flights that Mr. Turpen referred to accounted for $1 .9-mi 11 ion. 
That represents 137. of our total Duty Free sales and we would expect 
this percentage to grow when United takes over due to their 
aggressive marketing posture. 

Now the News/Gift Principal Concession: our term is 10" years 
extending to mid year 1993. Our facilities, totally, are slightly 
less than 9,600 square feet. The Principal Concession, we also have 
three selling locations. The largest of these we refer to as our 
main shop, slightly less than 6,000 square feet, and this facility 
contains the minority subtenant spaces. As you'll see later, the 
loss of a portion of this business, even at our volume levels, could 
mean the difference between a profit and a loss. The impact on the 
minorities from a profit/loss standpoint would even be greater. In 
addition to the main shop, we have a 1,650 square foot shop located 
just next to and connecting to the main Duty Free Shop. The place- 
ment of this shop is extremely important as the Duty Free customers 
flow naturally into the shop after they make their bonded duty free 
purchases. We would not be able to duplicate this excellent 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 11 



arrangement in the North Terminal. We also have a gate shop, 406 
square feet, located at gate 55. Presently in the North Terminal we 
operate a News/Gift Shop in the Hub area. Our portion of this shop 
is 2,589 square feet, approximately 2,600 square feet. I would like 
you to keep that figure in mind. 

There are major differences between our operation in North and the 
three facilities that we operate in the International Terminal. I 
would like to review those differences. We have three times as much 
space in the International Terminal as we have in North. We have 
exclusive rights to sell most of the product lines in the Interna- 
tional Terminal versus no exclusive in the North. We have three 
shops strategically located in the International Terminal; in the 
North our competition would have first crack at the international 
passengers. Our lease in the International Terminal runs through 
mid-year 1993, while our lease in the North Terminal terminates in 
July of 1989; a difference of approximately four (4) years. 

The competition: The various shops in the North Terminal would take 
away not only from the Principal Concession but also would take away 
sales from the Duty Free concession. The fact that shops exist, 
regardless of what is sold in those shops, would erode our sales, 
both duty free and duty paid. 

If I might quickly review those five points - we have three times as 
much space in the International Terminal than we have in the North; 
we have exclusive rights to sell in the International Terminal versus 
no exclusive in North; we have three shops strategically located in 
the International Terminal versus one shop not well located in North; 
our lease in the International Terminal runs four years longer than 
the lease we have in North; and, the competition aspects. 

As you can see, will you flip it back Joe, there's a couple more 
points I have to make. As you can see, our investment on the 
Principal Concession side is also formidable. The rental figure of 
$8 . 5-mi 1 1 ion is guaranteed over the 10 year term of the lease 
however, the concession fees we pay the Airport will be considerably 
higher than this figure because we're currently in percentage rent, 
paying significantly more than the guarantee. With the loss of Pan 
Am, soon to be United flights, we would not be able to achieve the 
percentage break point. You see our total 1984 sales and the Pan Am 
sales which are $1,750,000. Pan Am, incidently, currently accounts 
for 35.5% of the total passengers departing out of the International 
Terminal . 

The impact on the North Terminal relocation: First, the loss of 
sales, the new capital investment, and our increased operating 
expense. As we would be required to service passengers departing to 
the Pacific at different terminals we would need additional staff 
because the Japan-bound flights leave at approximately the same 
time. For example, Northwest 27 leaves at 11:55 a.m., JAi #1 leaves 
at 12:15 p.m., Pan Am 11 leaves at 12:40 p.m. and the two China 
Airlines flights to Narita leave at 12:45 p.m.. They all depart 
within this narrow one hour window. They depart at this time for a 
variety of reasons: competition, connecting flights to Hong Kong, 
Singapore and other Asian Pacific cities and the Narita curfew. 



Joe Lyons: The next subject going down those three headings Is the 
loss of sales and increase in concession fees of percentage of each 
sales dollar. This is a potentially volatile break. This 1s a 
disastrous area as the bidding for these concessions requires you to 
come up with guarantees which allow very little tolerance for error. 
I've asked Tom Adams to go through with you the charts that he has 
developed and the various financial scenarios which he will come up 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 12 



with which show the difficulties which will arise should United be 
allowed to make this proposed move. Tom. 



Tom Adams: Well, as Joe mentioned, I was part of the original bid 
committee that analyzed the Central Terminal and a large portion of 
my job, both then and today, is evaluating different concession 
opportunities. I would just like to say that at the time we had the 
express understanding that we would be having access to all of the 
international passengers and on that assumption we were willing to 
commit in good faith for the term of the concession to pay a 
considerable amount of money, expecting that the Airport would have 
the same good faith. There was absolutely no consideration that any 
of these flights should be moved to any other terminal, and if we had 
any inclination of it we would have bid substantially less money than 
we did. 

I'd like to go back to the three points that Gary raised about sales 
projections. As he said, in the North Terminal we would have 
approximately 1/3 of the space that we have in the International 
Terminal. This is extremely important in our business because it's 
the last time that anybody is going to have an opportunity to 
purchase in the United States and if they don't see something that 
they like they're just going to take their money back to Japan. The 
ideal selection is very important to us and that's a direct function 
of space. He also mentioned that in the International Terminal we 
have the exclusive rights to sell where as in the North Terminal we 
would not. So a substantial portion of our sales would be going to 
competition. 

The third point that he mentioned was the locations. In the 
International Terminal, our major shop with the most impact is the 
first one that the people see; then there are two shops downstream 
...one at the gates and then another one that we call the "Fast 
Shop", so there's three opportunities. In the North Terminal, the 
first shop that people would see would be a competitive shop. We 
would only have one shop with substantially less space. So there are 
those considerations that would have a substantial impact on sales. 

The other one that concerns us quite a bit is the precedent that 
would be established by United in allowing them to move. It's 
difficult for us to see how you would be able to allow United to move 
and not allow Northwest to move if they should so desire, and that 
would be a substantial disaster to us. 

The numbers that Joe showed you here, I think, are extremely 
conservative. I think that... Joe if you could flip those charts... 
we know that there is going to be a substantial drop in sales. To 
show the impact of it... with a 2% drop in sales over the term of the 
Duty Free concession there would be a revenue loss of the Principal 
and the Duty Free Concession of $1 .9-mi 1 1 ion; an estimated 
$4 . 8-mi 1 1 ion , with the 5% drop in sales; an estimated $9 . 5-mi 1 1 i on 
with the 10% drop; and $14. 3-mi 1 1 ion loss in sales with the 15% 
drop. The same type of impact would occur with concession fees. 
Someone is going to have to pay the difference, either us or the 
Airport, depending upon what the contractual agreements are. But at 
2%, it would be $310,000; at 5%, it would be $776,000; 10%, it would 
be $1 .6-million; and, 15%, it would be $2. 3-mi 1 1 ion. So there is a 
potential of substantial damage being done to the whole concept of 
the concession. At least in our case, we would definitely be losing 
money. . .somewhere between the 2% and 5% range... but at least in our 
case we'd have some ways of mitigating the damage because we do have 
the Duty Free rights throughout the Airport and we've got the North 
Terminal News/Gift concession. This is an option that the minorities 
do not have at all and they're also operating under a much lower 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 13 



volume base than we are. It would make our concession nonviable; it 
would be an absolute disastor for the minorities. 

I believe Gary Hahn is going to talk about the capital expenditure, 
now. 



Gary Hahn: We have the new capital investment listed on this chart. 
As you can see, the major item there is the North Terminal Duty Free 
Shop, the expense to construct that. We would also need to construct 
an operating warehouse in the North Terminal. Our operating 
warehouse in the Central Terminal would be too far away to service 
the United international passengers on a timely basis. The cut off 
time would have to be approximately one-hour before departure time, 
thereby limiting sales to passengers who would arrive at the Airport 
at least one-hour before the flight departs. We need this time to 
pack the bags and transport the merchandise from the International 
Terminal over to the North Terminal. Currently, in the International 
Terminal, we operate essentially without a cut-off time. Our 
philosophy is that if we can sell the customer we can beat the 
customer to the gate with the merchandise. I might add that Duty 
Free operations in many other airports have cut off times of from 
35-minutes to an hour-and-a-half , which significantly reduces the 
sales opportunity. 

The next item is we would remerchandise the Hub shop in order to 
maximize sales to the Pacific bound passengers. You see we have an 
additional inventory of $150,000, we have the additional operating 
expenses. . .as you can see we've listed those on an annual basis... a 
bi-lingual staff, a new warehouse staff, shop management, and the 
addition of customs supervision. Since the flights to Japan, as I 
mentioned, and to the Orient, depart within that same narrow one-hour 
window we would have to retain the staff that we have at the 
International Terminal, plus put on additional staff in the North 
Terminal in order to service these United flights if they were 
permitted to fly out of the North Terminal. I'll turn it back to 
Joe, who wi 1 1 sum up. 



Joe Lyons: Let me close by summarizing the points that we covered 
this morning. We believe that the proposal will have a numer of 
negative impacts on both the Duty Free and the principal merchandise 
concession and the Airport itself. Financially, looking at the 
annual impact, it will be very severe. The loss sales on the left 
hand side will account, on our most conservative estimate, for $1.3- 
million against the trend which is up, at the present time. 
Increased operating expenses will account for an additional $268,000 
a year. Depreciation each year will account for another $170,000 as 
we amortize the additional investment required by the proposed move. 
The additional inventory investment will total $50,000 each year. 

In addition, passenger service, we believe will suffer. Interna- 
tional passengers departing out of the North Terminal will not be 
exposed to specialized merchandise facilities and the merchandise 
concept which currently exists in the International Terminal today. 
The ground rules on which we committed minimum guarantees in excess 
of $20-mi 1 1 ion and invested over $3-mi 1 1 i on in facilities will be 
changed, putting ourselves and our minority subtenants in a dangerous 
financial position. The Master Plan, under which the domestic 
departures are scheduled to depart from the North Terminal and 
international departures from the International Terminal, will 
effectively be violated. The dangerous precedent Tom Adams discussed 
gives us grave concern. Other international carriers will be able 
to approach the Airport and request permission to fly out of other 
areas of the Airport, effectively reducing the revenues and raising 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 14 



the expenses of our concessions and vulcanizing the international 
departures from the San Francisco Airport. We believe that that is a 
trend which no one wants to see. 

We have present here the minority subtenants who have been with us 
since July of 1983 and who would like to add their comments to ours 
on the effect of the proposed move on their own operations at the 
International Terminal. 



Commissioner Goosby: Ms. Stafford. There's only one, right? 

Donetta Stafford: There's three of us. 

Commissioner Goosby: There's only one on this Western Moods Shop? 



Donetta Stafford: I own the Western Shop and that shop is 
particularly geared towards international passengers. Americans and 
other passengers don't buy as many cowboy hats and turquoise jewelry 
so we would be particularly affected. Not only am I concerned about 
the big picture effects of this but, for myself, I won't be moving to 
the North Terminal .. .we haven't had that offer. So, it would 
probably be the end of a very good minority program. We have worked 
very well with Duty Free in creating in the Airport a very unique 
blend of stores that San Francisco should be very proud of. 



Commissioner Goosby: You said there's two more. Does she speak for 

all of you. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Let me understand something. . .are you 
saying that 35% of the passengers are Pan Am... is that correct? 



Gary Hahn: Totally, out of the International Terminal; that's both 
domestic and international. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: So some of them would still be there. But 
international is 137.? 



Gary Hahn: Pan Am accounts for 13% of our Duty Free sales. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: You had expected that would increase with 
United Airlines. Are you saying that if you loose that ]4% that 
means you have to shut down? 



Donetta Stafford: Well, that 14% is much bigger than that because 
they spend more dollars than the other passengers. Sometimes they 
may be 14% of your passengers but they may be spending 50% of the 
money. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: In other words what you see is that the 
Japanese passengers are the ones that give you a lot of your business 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 15 



Donetta Stafford: I would say during our low period they give us 
40% of our business between the hours of 10 and 1 and during the 
high periods they do as much as 50 to 60% of our business. 



Pauline Javier: Commissioners, Mr. Turpen, I'm Pauline Javier of 
the Poster Shop. I think, an important point to bring out is that 
our merchandise is limited according to our lease so we would have a 
difficult time readjusting with the loss of these passengers that we 
have bought our merchandise for. We sell our items on a non-exclu- 
sive basis... that is to say that Duty Free can carry our items also 
but we cannot carry their items. So the loss of these passengers 
can really be devastating 

Commissioner Goosby: Thank you. Ellen Roberts. 



Ellen Roberts: My name is Ellen Roberts and we're the flower 
vendors; the subtenant part of the program with the Duty Free 
Shoppers. For us it's also the same thing... the Japanese passengers 
account for a much higher dollar volume than any other inter- 
national traveller. We've also invested quite a bit of money in 
bi-lingual signs and an entire redwood display which is oriented 
towards those passengers. In addition to that we also have the 
problem. . .we' ve achieved certain volumes with our vendors and have 
been able to hold prices or achieve volume discounts which we would 
no longer be able to do and which would necessitate some price 
increases. . .something we've tried not to do in keeping with some of 
the Airport policies. I think the impact of, as Donetta pointed 
out, even though it's a small portion of the passengers it's a large 
portion of our sales. 



Commissioner Goosby: Thank you. All right, that's the end of that 
presentation. 

Joe Lyons: Mr. Chairman, we will give to Mr. Turpen books which 
incorporate letters, charts, legal opinions and the other material 
we have discussed. We have extra copies and we'll be happy to 
submit any additional material. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: I sent a note to Mr. Turpen... I think we 
need to have a specific copy of the charts you are alluding to for 
the minutes. Are they in here? I don't think so. 



Gary Hahn: No. Some of the charts are, but we'll give you a 
complete set. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Right. Because you refer to them. We 
would appreciate it. 



Commissioner Goosby: Glenn Plymate, Foreign Flag Carriers 



Glenn Plymate: Good morning. My name 1s Glenn Plymate. I 
represent the San Francisco Foreign Flag Carriers; I am their 
executive director. Foreign Flag Carriers is a corporation of 
international air lines that own and operate facilities in the 
International Terminal. The ten carriers are Qantas, Singapore, 
Philippine Airlines, China Airlines, JAL, British, Lufthansa, CP 
Air, Mexicana and Northwest (tape was changed) . . .with United 

Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 16 



Airline's proposal. Number one, we were concerned with the economic 
impacts this move would have on the international carriers. This 
has been very eloquently expressed in detail by the Duty Free Shop 
but we saw this, in a conceptual way, of requiring additional 
facilities and added staff. We also had a concern that this 
duplication of facilities for Foreign Exchange and Duty Free could 
result in a deterioration of service to the international passengers 
that use the Central Terminal now. If Duty Free would very 
logically manage their staff in accordance with revenue production 
they would be putting in fewer people in the International Terminal 
which would result in eroding of services to the international 
passengers that use those facilities now. It would also take out of 
revenue service facilities in the North Terminal that could be used 
for revenue production for the Airport. Any loss in revenue through 
Duty Free and Foreign Exchange operations does translate into higher 
rates and use charges for all the other carriers that use the 
Airport. 

We're also concerned with operational impacts as United Airlines 
proposes arriving its international flights at the International 
Terminal and then towing the aircraft from the Central Terminal to 
the North Terminal. This represents an additional operation on the 
apron. Number one, it's going to cost United Airlines more to 
operate in this mode but what we're most concerned with is the 
delays that could be caused to international carriers at the Central 
Terminal caused by the additional congestion on the apron that this 
towing operation would cause. These delays can be extremely costly; 
just to idle a 747 costs $15.00 a minute in fuel. The crew 
salaries, the inconvenience in time delays to the passengers on 
board translates into costs that could be several thousand dollars 
per hour. This has not been analyzed in the detail that Duty Free 
has gone to but it's easy to see, conceptually, the kinds of 
economic impacts and operational problems that this could give to 
the carriers that are using the Central Terminal now. 

We believe that the splitting of international departures would be 
confusing to the people that use the San Francisco Airport. The 
Airport and the Airports Commission has spent several years 
developing the Central Terminal as the international gateway for San 
Francisco. We feel this would be considerably affected by asking 
passengers to make a choice or have to make a decision on which 
terminal they're going to use to fly Internationally. We believe 
that departing passengers on United Airlines would be restricted in 
the choice of airlines they fly. We hesitate to use the word 
monopoly or unfair competition but it's clear United Airlines 
domestic passengers flying internationally would be held captive on 
United Airlines under its operational proposal. International 
passengers that now use the conventional international system get 
some chance to see San Francisco. . .some of the cultural exhibits 
that are in the terminal .. .but I think that if the United Airlines 
proposal is adopted the most the international departing passengers 
will see of San Francisco is a couple of loading bridges and a 
departure lounge in the North Terminal. 

As was pointed out in the Duty Free presentation, there's also a 
concern that if this privilege is granted to United Airlines that It 
would be reasonable to expect that all the other domestic carriers 
that offer international service would expect to be treated the same 
way so it would end up with probably International operations all 
over the Airport. Delta, Western and all the other carriers that 
offer international departures, or would in the future, could 
conceivably have operations in their own terminal. 



Minutes, January 7, 1986. Page 17 



Lastly, and this is not pointed out in the letter to Mr. Turpen 
because it is an extremely sensitive Issue, is the question of 
security. As you know, security, especially for international 
passengers, is an extremely sensitve issue at the present time. 
Security for international passengers must be handled differently 
than for strictly domestic passengers. We're concerned that there 
would be perhaps less strict security than there should be if this 
were split into two terminals. It would be also a problem in 
addressing one form of security for domestic passengers in the North 
Terminal and the type of security that is required for International 
passengers. We'd be happy to put these remarks in more detail if 
the Commission desires. 



Commissioner Goosby: Thank you. Steve Hicks. 

David Ellison: I'm not Mr. Hicks. Mr. Hicks is either detained by 
the traffic or his wife's operation this morning in the hospital. I 
am David Ellison, counsel for Mr. Hicks, and I would like to just 
briefly make comments, hopefully not duplicate the significant 
presentation of Duty Free and the others. Mr. Hicks did forward to 
Mr. Turpen a response to Mr. Turpen's letter of November 1st, a 
November 6th letter, and I will make copies of those available to 
Mr. Turpen and the Commission should you not have seen them. 

A couple of brief comments that Steve would have made were he here. 
He began to work at the Airport in 1959 and, frankly, has spent most 
of his business life, in fact, exclusively his business life there. 
He became a tenant in 1966 with an exclusive candy shop concession 
in the Central Terminal and the South Terminal that prospered. In 
particular, the international business prospered in the South 
Terminal. In 1982, the Master Plan had been adopted, construction 
commenced and with the move of international operations to the 
Central Terminal, he negotiated with the Commission. In 1982 that 
negotiation was based expressly and specifically, as the letter 
says, on representations that the Central Terminal would house all 
of the international operations. 

Skyline Candy had found that the Japanese customers and travellers 
were very generous and quite frankly that that was a business that 
was worth pursuing. As a result, Steve was willing to increase his 
rent 40% and commit to a significant financial investment in the new 
premises there. That is all outlined in the letter. At the same 
time there was an expectation that that exclusivity of the inter- 
national traffic would continue. Specific statements were made by 
the staff and were discussed as the lease modification was approved 
here. 

In 1985, even less than a year ago, Steve gave up his right to the 
exclusive sale of the better candy in the South Terminal at the 
request of the Commission and in a negotiation in which he had 
received an extension of the Central Terminal lease by the 
approximate time that the South Terminal was going to be out of 
operation. That again was based on the expectation and representa- 
tion that the international operations would continue in the Central 
Terminal. It's clear that from a legal standpoint and also from a 
moral and a judgmental standpoint that Skyline Candy has made 
committments here based on those representations. It is also clear 
that, for the same reasons outlined so well by Duty Free, his lease 
would be frustrated in the Central Terminal were United to be 
permitted to fragment international operations. The question has 
been asked, where do you draw the line? If you don't draw it here, 
I think that is an apt one. 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 18 



Secondly, how would a tenant such as Skyline recoup Its Investment 
or realize the normal profit on its heavy investment in the Central 
Terminal. The answer is probably it would not. It does not, as 
does Duty Free, have another selling location. In fact, it 
expressly gave up that other selling location in the South Terminal 
less than a year ago in the expectation that the international 
traffic would be maintained in the Central Terminal. 

The points have been raised, but have not been raised in his letter, 
about safety standards on international flights and the convenience 
of International passengers. Steve, were he here, would have made a 
very strong statement about that. As we all know, the Airport has 
been, over the last 25 years, significantly improved and increased. 
That has brought much construction, much confusion. The confusion 
is greater for an international traveller who may not be as fluent 
in English as some of us. Even those of us who travel frequently in 
and out of San Francisco have, from time to time because of the 
necessary construction, been confused about where to go and how to 
park and how to move in and out. The Commission, with its Master 
Plan, presented a method to have all of that sensibly resolved, 
particularly for international travellers, by having them come to 
the Central Terminal as an international gateway, as it has been 
said earlier today. That would be destroyed and fragmented and we 
would have those who come to San Francisco with the same confusing 
situation that exists at other international airports that are not 
as well planned as this one would be were the international traffic 
maintained in the Central Terminal. 

It applies to Skyline's Candy Shop as it applies to Duty Free. ..if 
you reduce the sales volumes by a significant percentage, and the 
Japanese customers are a very large spending effort, Mr. Hicks 
estimates it to be between 30 and 40 percent of his business, 
there's no way to cover your fixed costs or amortize your invest- 
ment. In short your expectations, both economic and other, are 
simply destroyed if this Commission were to permit this to occur at 
this time. There's just no way to overcome it realistically by 
negotiation. As Steve says in the last paragraph of his letter 
which you have, he relied in all of these business arrangements on 
the expectation that the international traffic would be there. He 
hopes that will continue to be the case. Thank you. 



Commissioner Goosby: Thank you. That concludes the comments for 
this item. Were there any comments the Commission wanted to make? 
There's one person who came in late because of the traffic tie-up 
that wanted to comment on Item 5, the Flying Tigers. We've acted 
on it, Ms. Wright, and I guess she's going to speak in favor of 
that. 



Jackie Wright: Yes. Members of the Commlsion, my name -is Jackie 
Wright, Director of Property for Flying Tigers. I would just like 
to say on behalf of Flying Tigers, our management and our board, 
that we really appreciate the efforts that have been made by not 
only members of the Commission but also the staff, including Lou 
Turpen, Angela Gittens and Don Garibaldi's office as well, In terms 
of trying to put the deal together as we hoped it was going to come 
together prior to the end of the year. We have accepted the terms 
of the proposals that have been adopted today and unfortunately, as 
we were in the final stages of putting together our transaction, we 
ran into difficulties with respect to the financing documents as 
well as the terms and conditions of the bond sale Itself, as well as 
other factors which were instrumental in causing the transaction to 
be deferred by our staff. Those included results for our 4th 
quarter as well as down trends and other considerations. What we 
plan to do now is we're going to basically be reviewing alterna- 

Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 19 



tlves. Our Board of Directors will be meeting the third week in 
January and at that time we will be scheduling a meeting, hopefully 
by the fourth week in January, to meet with Lou Turpen's staff to 
try and regroup and basically try and plan our short and long term 
plans for the future. So we just wanted to make an appearance here 
to say that we really appreciate the efforts that have been made and 
we wanted to assure you that we're going to use every effort to try 
to resolve the issue of our long standing presence here in San 
Francisco. So, thank you, unless someone has a question. 



Commissioner Goosby: That completes the agenda and unless the 
Commissioners have something they want to bring to the Director, 



Mr. Turpen: No. I simply ask the Commission for a closed session 
at the end of the regular meeting. 

This is Mr. Carlos Casos of Mexicana Airlines. I believe he was 
detained as well . 



Commissioner Goosby: If you want to say a few words. Your point 
has been made by your Director of the Foreign Flag Carriers. He has 
listed your airline as one of those companies he represented. 



Carlos Casos: Mr. President, Members of the Airports Commission, my 
name is Carlos Casos. I'm with Mexicana Airlines at the San 
Francisco International Airport and I'm the Chairman for the San 
Francisco Foreign Flag Carriers. On behalf of the San Francisco 
Foreign Flag Carriers I'm opposed to the consideration for the 
following reasons: the financial impact, the formula for joint use 
of space provides that 207. of the applicable total charges shall be 
divided equally among the scheduled carriers using the joint space. 
The remaining 807. shall be prorated by the scheduled carriers for 
its enplaning and deplaning passengers as appropriate to the related 
services. If United Airlines is allowed to depart from the North 
Terminal facility United Airlines will not prorate the cost of Pier 
'D' facilities with the rest of the international and domestic 
carriers operating out of this terminal. There is 39,950 sq. ft. 
of category one space at $7.15 per sq. ft. which amounts to 
$1,700,000. Moreover, an estimated 20,143 square feet for various 
categories will only be partially prorated, such as baggage makeup 
areas, 400 various equipment rooms, toilets near the ramp areas, 
north and south side. 

Number two is the Duty Free Foreign Exchange facilities: a cost 
center is the terminal area. The development of duplicate Duty Free 
and Foreign Exchange facilities will undoubtedly increase the 
terminal expense, a cost which will ultimately be borne by all 
carriers operating in San Francisco. In addition, if this operation 
results in a terminal area negative expense, the scheduled airlines 
will have to agree to include it as an item of expense and budgetary 
forecast of terminal area expense for the next ensuing fiscal year, 
an amount equal to the difference between 157. of concession revenues 
and $5-mi 1 1 ion. 

Then we have the operational impact at terminal area Pier 'D'... 
towing an aircraft against traffic flow... Pier 'D' to North 
Terminal .. .will create delays. The more you move an aircraft the 
more your chances of an accident on the airfield area. Today, 
United Airlines may be trying to tow twice or three times per day; 
does anybody know how many more in ten months time? If an overflow 
occurs from the Pan American side to the San Francisco Foreign Flag 
Carrier side, not only the aircraft would have to be towed but also 
the support equipment. . .and that's a hassle. 

Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 20 



Matter of policy: the Central Terminal Pier 'D' took years to 
develop as the hub for San Francisco's international operations. 
Its effectiveness will be substantially diminished by relocating a 
portion of the operations elsewhere. Are we ready to permit all the 
carriers, besides United Airlines, to operate in this fashion? What 
is there to stop TWA, American and Western Airlines? 

Also, we feel that it is a security risk. The splitting of inter- 
national departures will promote undesirable characters to conduct 
their endless operation at this aerial gateway. In case of 
emergency it is going to be much harder for Airport management and 
law enforcement agencies to control two international points. Let's 
hypothetical ly try to close the North Terminal due to an emergency 
in one of their international flights. How does Airport management 
handle this situation? At Central Terminal Pier 'D', where we are 
today, International Terminal Airport management and law enforcement 
agencies will only have to deal with one building. We are dealing 
with one building today, one security checkpoint. In addition, at 
this terminal, curbside check-in is not permitted. 

In closing, this splitting of international departures will be 
confusing to passengers of San Francisco. The strong intonation Is 
of San Francisco as an aerial gateway to the world. The public's 
perception would surely be affected, negative, we predict. Thank 
you. 



Commissioner Tsougaraki s: I have a question. How do we stop 
curbside check in? 



Mr. Turpen: What you do is put a prohibition on it which means that 
any person departing internationally would have to go into the 
terminal building and check in at the ticket counter. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Couldn't it happen, anyway? 



Mr. Turpen: Surely. But basically they wouldn't have baggage tags 
for foreign destinations. They would all be retained inside the 
terminal so there would be no way to check a bag outside. 

Commissioner Fleishell: Up until recent years, there was no curb- 
side check-in. Some did and some didn't. I'd like staff to look 
into a security aspect that concerns me. I don't think we know 
what's going to happen in the next five years. We certainly, ten 
years ago, didn't know we'd be dealing with the acts of terrorism 
that we've all seen in the last year or two. It may well come to 
pass that we would want to create a totally sterile departure 
terminal at the Airport where only ticketed passengers would be 
permitted in the building. This is already done, on a selective 
basis, in New York where only ticketed passengers go beyond the 
umbillical that goes out to the gate. And that was when security 
was not really a strong problem; that was just traffic problems. I 
think the time may well come when we want to have a secure area 
where only our ticketed international passengers would be processed 
and we'd at least limit or inhibit the number of people subject to 
terrorism. If that may come to pass, permitting the vulcanization 
of the flow of the international traffic out of this Airport would 
preclude you from having an effective security system in the future. 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 21 



Mr. Turpen: I understand. We'll be happy to look at that and 
provide the Airports Commission with our thoughts. For the benefit 
of the persons in the audience, the Airports Commission directed me 
to calendar this item so that they might receive public testimony on 
this matter to aid in making their decision. The obvious decision 
the Commission has to make is in response to United Airlines's 
request for a waiver of the Airports Commission policy. I would 
expect the Commission to take this under advisement and hopefully, 
in the very near future, render a decision. I would ask, Dr. 
Goosby, that my staff memorandum to the Airports Commmission on this 
subject be made officially part of the minutes only because it 
captures effectively the issue at hand and we would ask the 
Commission Secretary to incorporate it. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Also, I would like to request that the 
minutes be prepared as quickly as possible and submitted to United 
Airlines. How far behind are we? 



Jean Caramatti : Back to December 3rd. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: I'd like the December 3rd meeting also. 



Jean Caramatti: It will be ready for the next Commission meeting. 



Commissioner Goosby: OK, then we can recess and go into closed 
session. 



Mr. Turpen: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Airports Commission will be 
going into a closed session and I would ask that you please vacate 
the room. Thank you. 



L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:15 AM to go into closed session. 




iramatti 
Amission Secretary 



Minutes, January 7, 1986, Page 22 



DUTY FREE PRESENTATION - JANUARY 7, 1986 
AGENDA 

Legal framework 

Key elements of Duty Free 

Key elements of principal concession 

Impact of North Terminal relocation 

Loss of sales/increase in concession fees as a percentage 

of sales - Duty Free - 

Loss of sales/increase in concession fees as a percentage 

of sales - principal. concession- 
New capital investment in facilities and inventory 
New operating expense 
DFS summary 
Minority sub-tenants 



LEGAL FRAMEWORK 



The Commission has the power to regulate the Airport. 

UAL is bound to obey all reasonable rules and regulations. 

The denial of this petition would be manifestly reasonable; 
its grant clearly unreasonable 

1. Undo the achievements of the master plan. 

2. Frustrate the objects of the contracts between the 

City and these concessionaires and cause sub- 
stantial damage. 



KEY ELEMENTS OF DUTY FREE 



TERM: 



6 years (7/01/83 - 6/30/89) 



FACILITIES 



6,433 sq. ft. 



INVESTMENT; 



$190 per sq. ft. = $1,222,300 



RENTAL : 



$15,000,000 guarantee or 15% of sales 



TOTAL 19 8 4 SALES: 



$14,751,000 



PAN AM 1984 SALES: $ 1,900,000 



KEY ELEMENTS OF PRINCIPAL CONCESSIONS 



TERM: 



10 years (7/01/83 - 6/30/93) 



FACILITIES: 



9,595 sq. ft. 



INVESTMEN 



$160 per sq. ft. = $1,535,000 



RENTAL: 



$8,500,000 guarantee or 20% of sales 



TOTAL 19 84 SALES 



$5,061,000 



PAN AM 19 8 4 SALES: 



$1,750,000 



IMPACT OF NORTH TERMINAL RELOCATION 



LOSS OF SALES and subsequent increase in concession fees as a 



percentage of each sales dollar. 



NEW CAPITAL INVESTMENT in physical facilities and Duty Free inventory 



INCREASED OPERATING EXPENSE as we will be required to service 
passengers departing to the Pacific at different terminals. 



LOSS OF SALES/INCREASE IN CONCESSION FEES AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALES 



DUTY FREE 

DESCRIPTION $000 T 



#1 Total 1984 Sales 14,751 100.00 

Concession Fee 2,600* 17.60 

#2 Projected Sales 14,440 100.00 

Concession Fee . 2,600 18.00 



Concession Fee Based on Case #1 
Percent Of Sales 2,541.0 17.60 



Shortfall (59) 



*Duty Free Shoppers pays the minimum. 



LOSS OF SALES/INCREASE IN CONCESSION FEES AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALES 



DESCRIPTION 



$000 



PRINCIPAL CONCESSION 



#1 Total 19S4 Sales 



5,061.0 



100.0 



Concession Fee 



1,012.0 



20.0 



#2 Projected Sales 



4,076.0 



100.0 



Concession Fee 



860.0 



21.0 



Concession Fee 3ased on Case SI 
Percent of Sales 



815.0 



20.0 



Shortfall 



(45) 



NEW OPERATING EXPENSE 



REQUIREMENT 



ANNUAL COST $000 



- Addition of bilingual staff 

- Addition of new warehouse staff 

- Addition of shop management 

- Addition of Customs supervisor 



136 
51 
20 
30 



INTERNATIONAL DEPARTURE TIMES 



NW 27 
JAL 001 
PA 011 
CI 001 



11:55 am 
12:15 pm 
12:40 pm 
12:45 pm 



daily 
daily 
daily 
2 x weekly 



SUMMARY 



ANNUAL IMPACT 



Lost Sales 

- Duty Free 

- Duty Paid 

- Total 



300.0 

985.0 

1,285.0 



- Increased Operating Expense 



268.0 



Facility Expenditures (depreciated over 
3 years represents 1 year's depreciation) 



170.0 



- Additional Inventory Investment 



50.0 



MORRIS BERNSTEIN 
PRESIDENT 

WILLIAM K COSLENTZ 
VICE-PRESIDENT 

DR Z L GOOSBY 

J EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94128 



MEMORANDUM 
December 31, 1985 




LOUISA.TURPEN 
DIRECTOR OF ZM HFOH I B 



TO: 



FROM: 



SUBJECT: 



MEMBERS, AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

Hon. Morris Bernstein, President 

Hon. William K. Coblentz, Vice President 

Hon. Z.L. Goosby 

Hon. J. Edward Flei shell 

Hon. Athena Tsougarakis 

Director of Airports 

Consideration of United Air Lines Petition to the Airports 
Commission to Allow International Departures from the North 
Terminal Domestic Facility 



In early 1980, the Airports Commission formulated a policy that the Central 
Terminal be developed as an international terminal. Modifications were made 
to the Airports Modernization and Renovation Program to accomplish this 
policy change, including the development of federal inspection services areas 
of a size and type to accommodate the simultaneous processing of four jumbo 
jet aircraft. Other modifications were made to develop space necessary to 
support international operations such as, increased passenger check-in space, 
a large meeter/greeter arrivals lobby, a traffic configuration to support 
large volumes of vehicular traffic and special charter bus loading zones ad- 
jacent to the terminal to support significant international charter 
activity. As well, modifications were made to ensure the Airport could main- 
tain the increased level of security required for international departures 
and to provide the sterile and secure corridor leading arriving passengers 
from their aircraft to the federal inspection area. 

In recognition of the difference in the passenger mix planned for the 
International Terminal, additional design modifications were made to the 
Terminal's concession plan. In order to maximize revenues, concession 
facilities catering to the international travelers were grouped in a "mall" 
fashion. The Airport's marketing of concession leases highlighted the 
concessionaires' opportunity to focus their merchandising and economize on 
staff resources through the centralization of the passenger flow. 



TEL. (4 15) 76 1-0800 



TELEX 509520 
SFO AIRPORT 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO.. 



Hembers, 

Airports Commission -2- December 31, 1985 



After two years of operation, the International Terminal has proven 
successful in meeting the design goals of effectiveness and efficiency in 
passenger processing and in concession revenue performance. 

At this time, however. United Air Lines, in support of its initiation of 
international operations at SFIA, has requested that the Commission either 
amend or grant United a waiver to its policy and establish a second 
international departure area within the North Terminal. 

United Air Lines maintains that, because of confusion and inconvenience to 
their passengers, and inefficiencies for their operation, it would be 
impractical to split its operation between North and International Terminals. 

Because of the importance of this issue to United Air Lines and to the 
Airport Community, the Commission needs to bear the views of the various 
affected parties before determining whether or not a policy change should be 
made. 



<3£lA-^&"^ 



L. A. Turpen 
Director 1 ' of Airports 

Prepared by: Angela Gittens 



/LIN1 



siv 

CANDY AND GIFT INC. 

1395 EL CAMINO REAL 
MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA 94030 



(415) 589-1417 
Francisco International Airport 

November 6, 1985 



Mr. Louis A. Turpen 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 

San Francisco, CA 94128 



Dear Mr. Turpen: 

Today I heard that final approval was given to United's acquisition of Pan Americans 
Pacific routes. I have been informed that United Air Lines intends to board these 
daily flights to Hong Kong and Tokyo in the North Terminal. This loss of passengers 
from the International Terminal would have a dramatic negative impact on my cur- 
rent candy business that is located in this terminal. 

My customers are predominantly Oriental, perhaps over 90 %. The loss of the Pan 
American passengers could immediately reduce my sales 30 to 40 %. This percentage 
being the Oriental traffic Pan Am now carries out of the terminal. In the future it 
appears to me, it will only get worse as United will take business away from the termi- 
nals remaining tennants and they will of course be boarded in the North Terminal. 

When lease negotiations were conducted several years ago it was emphasized, by the 
Airport Staff, what a wonderful location I would have with all the International trave- 
lers all boarding in the same terminal. I certainly agreed and it was on this basis I 
committed to spend close to $200,000.00 on a new facility and have my rent percentage 
increased 40 %. Bused on the same logic I gave up my candy rights in the South 
Terminal for an extension of my International lease. 

I obviously have consistently believed the Airport's assertions that the Central Terminal 
was the one and only International Terminal and risked my financial future assuming they 
knew what they were talking about. I hope I wasn't wrong. 



Sincerely, 




Steven B. Hicks, President 
Skyline Candy and Gift, Inc. 

SBH/se 



MORRIS BERNSTEIN 
PRESIDENT 

WILLIAM K. COBLENT2 
VICE-PRESIDENT 

DR. Z. L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUG ARAKIS 



AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA S4128 



November 1. 1985 




LOUISA.TURPEN 
DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 



TO: International Terminal Concession Tenants 

FROM.: L.A. Turpen 

SUBJECT: United Airlines' Acquisition of Pan American's 
Pacific Routes 



On October 24th. I met with United Airlines to discuss 
the proposed method of operation should their purchase 
of Pan American's Pacific route system be approved. 

Their operating scheme envisions arriving at the Inter- 
national Terminal but relocating Pan American's Pacific 
departures, i.e.. the daily non-stop to Hong Kong and 
the daily non-stop to Tokyo, to their North Terminal 
gates beyond the North Terminal Hub. 

I feel as the Airport Director it is my duty to advise 
you of United 's proposal. The Airport has suggested 
United continue to depart from the International Termi- 
nal for the two previously mentioned daily flights. 

I would appreciate your advising me directly, or my 
Deputy Director for Business and Finance. Angela Gittens, 
of potential impacts upon your operation should United '6 
option be implemented. 

The Airports Commission will be considering this matter 
in the near future. It is important that you communicate 
your thoughts no later than November 12th. so that I may 
share your views with the Airpor^ Commission. 




ir"pen 
Director of Airports 



TEL. (415) 761-0800 



TELEX 509520 
SFO AIRPORT 



to 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




?/ DOCUMENTS DIPT, 

MAR 2 8 1986 



SAN FRANCISCO 
Piioi ir. i ipoaov 



MINUTES 



JANUARY 21, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

JANUARY 21 , 1986 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 3 

B. ROLL CALL: 3 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

December 17, 1985 86-0013 

January 7, 1986 86-0014 3 



ITEMS INITIATED BY 
COMMISSIONERS: 

Election of Vice- 
President of 
Commission 86-0025 10-11 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINIS- 
TRATION, OPERATIONS, AND 
MAINTENANCE: 

1. Airports Commission Budget 

for Fiscal Year 1986/87 86-0015 3-5 

2. Consideration of United Air- 
lines Petition to Airports 
Commission Requesting Waiver 
of Commission Policy to Allow 
International Departures from 
the North Terminal Domestic 

Facility 86-0016. 5-8 

3. Lease of Barber Shop/Month- 

to-Month Hold Over 86-0017 8 

4. Approval of Temporary 
Offices for Alaska Air- 
1 ines in Lower Level of 

Boarding Area 'B' 86-0018 8 

5. Professional Services 
Agreement - Tracor, Inc. - 

$10,000.00 86-0019 8-9 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

6. Retirement Resolution: 

Willie Bible 86-0020 9 

7. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1492: Perimeter Road 

Reconstruction 86-0021 9-10 

8. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1521R: Garage Signing, 

Electronic Display Units 86-0022 10 

9. Declaration of Emergency: 
Airport Contract No. 1687 - 
Power Cable Replacement 

12TAAM-1 86-0023 10 

10. Request for Approval of 

Travel /Training for Air- 
ports Commission Repre- 
sentatives 86-0024 10 



G. CORRESPONDENCE: 12 

H. CLOSED SESSION: 3 

I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 12 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

January 21 , 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order 
at 9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 



Present: Morris Bernstein 

Z. L. Goosby 
J. Edward Fleishell 
Athena Tsougarakis 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the following regular meetings were adopted by order of 
the Airports Commission. 

No. 86-0013 December 17, 1985 

No. 86-0014 January 7, 1986 



CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting recessed at 9:02 AM to go into closed session and reconvened 
at 9:30 AM. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airport's General Counsel, announced that the closed 
session just concluded by the Commission was held for the purpose of 
discussing litigation matters. 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 
The following items was unanimously adopted. 
1. Airports Commission Budget for Fiscal Year 1986/87 
No. 86-0015 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 3 



Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, reminded the Commission that due to 
the accident on Highway 101 on January 7 several airline representa- 
tives were unable to attend the Public Hearing on the budget. He 
indicated to the Commission at the time that staff was continuing to 
work with the airlines on several items of concern in the Airport 
budget. He added that that process continues. He said that there are a 
number of things that the airlines have asked us about and we will 
commit to continue to work with them to try to resolve those concerns. 

Mr. Turpen said that the budget is due in the Mayor's Office on February 
1st. He said it would be appropriate for the Commission to pass it at 
this time with the understanding that there may be further reductions in 
the budget between now and the first of February, consistent with our 
discussions with the airlines. He said that there will be no additions 
to the budget prior to February 1st but there could possibly be some 
reductions . 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Jim Chamberlain of Delta Airlines if 
he wished to address the Commission. 

Mr. Chamberlain said that he was happy to hear Mr. Turpen' s comments 
about continuing to work with the airlines. He said that they have had 
intensive meetings with Airport staff on some items of deep concern in 
the budget... not the least of which is the magnitude of the budget. He 
said he was pleased that the airlines would have the opportunity to 
continue to discuss the budget with Mr. Turpen and his staff. 

Mr. Chamberlain added that it was his understanding that the Mayor also 
expressed some concern about the size of the budget. 

Commissioner Flei shell said that in the past when the budget came along 
the Commission would be advised of those areas where the airlines and 
other interested parties were at variance with the staff. He felt that 
the Commission should be advised of concerns expressed by the airlines 
and of the staff responses. 

Mr. Turpen responded that staff will do that. He asked Commissioner 
Flei she 1 1 if he wanted a follow-up letter to staff's meeting with the 
airl ines. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he would like that. 

Commissioner Goosby asked about the other staff person anticipated for 
the City Attorney's office. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that positions for one attorney and one 
secretary have been budgeted. 

Mr. Garibaldi added that it was his understanding that it was a 
Commission policy that more litigation matters were to be handled 
in-house. He said that that appears to be the City Attorney's direction 
as wel 1 . 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if the Airport was billed additionally for 
work handled by the City Attorney's office downtown. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that we are. He explained that the cases that 
go downtown are those that either require some particular expertise that 
we don't have at the Airport or we don't have the personnel to handle 
it. He cited the prevailing wage ordinance as an example and explained 
that it had ramifications beyond just the Airports Commission. He said 
that all the construction litigation is handled at the Airport; every- 
thing else that comes up is handled by our staff at the Airport. 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 4 



Commissioner Bernstein said that since there will be an addition to the 
Airport's legal staff more cases should be handled in-house. 

Mr. Garibaldi said that it was his understanding that that is what the 
Commission desires. 

Mr. Garibaldi added that all the construction litigation by outside 
counsel was concluded in 1984. 

Commissioner Flei shell asked why we need to hire another attorney when 
the construction program has essentially been finished. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that the litigation is just beginning. We have 
an informal complaint presented to us in the last couple of weeks from 
Tutor-Sal iba for $7-mi 1 1 ion . We have claims from Fishbach & Moore and 
litigation with architects, all of which are being handled in-house. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if existing staff could handle these cases. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded not with the present magnitude of the cases. 
He added that construction litigation, especially, becomes a paper war. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that if he ran a business that had a 
temporary situation such as construction that would end within a 
reasonable period of time and then the litigation, inevitable though it 
might be, would end he would not inflate his staff and then later use 
Parkinson's law to inflate the work to keep the additional attorney 
busy. 

Commissioner Goosby commented on the $9,000 video taping machine for 
the Community Affairs office. He said that on the face of it he could 
not see why one was necessary just to read press clippings. 

Mr. Turpen said that as an administrative matter the budget must go 
forward today. He said that staff is liable to reduce the budget 
further as a result of meetings with the airlines. He added that if, 
in the future, the Commission wished to adjust the budget it could be 
done through the Mayor's Office. 

Commissioner Fleishell recommended adopting the budget with the 
understanding that any item could be dealt with along the way. 



The following is a verbatim transcript of Item 2. 

2. Consideration of United Airlines Petition to Airports Commission 
Requesting Waiver of Commission Policy to Allow International 
Departures from the North Terminal Domestic Facility. 

No. 86-0016 

Mr. Turpen: The Commission has before you a revised resolution 
presented to you this morning wherein the last resolve was modified to 
say: "Resolved this Commission hereby affirms the Director's refusal 
of United Airlines request to enplane passengers from the North 
Terminal facilities in accord with the authority granted to the 
Director in Rule and Regulation 1.5.19." 

I believe there may be some speakers on this matter. I would suggest 

that possibly the Commission hear first those individuals who wish to 

address the Commission and then I'll be happy to respond to any 
questions the Commission may have. 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 5 



Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Laveroni 



Mr. Paul Laveroni, Attorney for Duty Free Shoppers: Mr. President, we 
put our names in on behalf of Duty Free Shoppers and there are some 
others. We made a presentation at the last hearing, in your absence, 
and we have just indicated that if there are other speakers who would 
like to hear from us again on points raised we would be happy to do so. 

Commissioner Bernstein: I think everyone would like to hear from you 
but I don't know if it's necessary. 



Mr. Laveroni: We'd like to reserve our space until the end. If there 
are any questions or comments as a result of other people's comments 
we'd be happy to address you. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. Does that go for Mr. Gary Hahn? 
Mr. Laveroni: Mr. Hahn and Mr. Lyons are here as well. 
Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Joe Lyons. 
Mr. Lyons: We're all together. 
Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Hicks. 



Mr. Steve Hicks, Skyline Candy: I'm not with them but I wi 1 1 wait. My 
attorney spoke last time. 



President Bernstein: Mr. Paul Van Wert. 



Mr. Alan Wayne, United Airlines: President Bernstein, Members of the 

Commission, my name is Alan Wayne, I'm Director of Public Affairs for 

United Airlines. With me is Paul Van Wert who is Regional Airport 
Affairs Administrator. 

All of you have received a letter over the signature of Steve Steers, 
our Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Western Division, 
responding to comments and discussion that was held with Mr. Turpen 
last Thursday on our plan to operate our international operations. If 
I may pull from that letter a couple salient points. 

It is our opinion that there are compelling operational marketing and 
economic reasons for our plan to operate our international departures 
out of the North Terminal. We are convinced this action is entirely 
consistent with United's legal rights under its lease and use agreement 
with the City and County of San Francisco; that this is the proper 
course of United to provide convenient, reliable and competitive 
service for travellers and enhance San Francisco's position as a major 
international gateway in the third largest hub on United's system, 
where we will be approaching 300 daily arrivals and departures. We are 
asking the City, as we have discussed with all of you and the Airports 
Commission, to recognize that United will be exercising its rights to 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 6 



operate its international departures from the North Terminal effective 
January 28th and for assistance in providing support activities related 
to Duty Free, Foreign Exchange, signage and facility modifications. As 
the largest carrier serving the Airport, we have had a long and 
mutually beneficial relationship with the City. We are hopeful, very 
hopeful, of resolving this matter prior to January 28th. It would be 
extremely unfortunate for United, the City, and the travelling public 
if this service begins without the many amenities that the travelling 
public is accustomed to. 

I should add, based on information received this morning, and in the 
interest of keeping the communications open between all of us... As you 
know, talks have been going on with the Japanese in Tokyo last week 
over Japanese concerns about granting us landing rights. It's been 
well reported in the press. Those talks ended last Friday; they 
resumed in Washington on Sunday; they ended last night. We anticipate 
that there will be some sort of announcement coming from United today 
with respect to a slight delay in the start-up date. However, and I 
want to stress this, that in no way changes the position of the company 
with respect to the points made in the letter to all of you dated 
January 20th. Thank you. 



Mr. Turpen: Paul, do you care to say anything? 



Mr. Paul Van Wert, United Airlines: Does anybody have any questions? 
I was up here in case anyone had questions. 



Commissioner Goosby: Are the people in the audience aware of the 
resolution that we're about to pass? 



Mr. Turpen: The thrust of the resolution is the same. 

Commissioner Goosby: The thrust of the resolution is the same; just 
some minor wording changes and I just want to be sure that if there was 
anybody present who wanted to speak to this that they knew what we are 
getting ready to pass. 

Mr. Hicks: What are you getting ready to pass? 

Mr. Turpen: For the benefit of those persons in the audience who may 
not have the resolution before them, the Airports Commission is 
presently considering the petition of United Airlines to allow United 
to operate from the North Terminal facility with its international 
departures, specifically those departures which it has purchased from 
Pan Am. The Airports Commission Resolution, which is being considered 
presently, would deny that petition and require that United Airlines 
operate from the International Terminal facility, consistent with the 
master plan and Commission policy. 

Mr. Hicks: Well, if you're about to pass that then I won't say 
anything. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Anything further? 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 7 



Mr. Turpen: Other than any questions the Commission has 



Commissioner Bernstein: Before I vote, I'd like to explain my vote. 

I'm in accord with the philosophy of the Commission and the Airport, 
definitely. However, I do think that in the interest of business and 
both parties that I'm just amazed that there hasn't been more dialogue 
and that there hasn't been some movement. The positions have been 
intractible on both sides. I find it incomprehensible but nevertheless 
I'm hopeful that there will be some resolution. In the meantime, in an 
effort to maintain a unanimous decision so that the Airports Commission 
remains together, I'm going to vote for it. I find myself in a very a 
pecul iar position. 



3. Lease of Barber Shop/Month-to-Month Hold-Over 

No. 86-0017 

Mr. Turpen said that the barbershop lease in the North Connector is 
expiring. This resolution gives staff permission to carry it over on a 
month-to-month basis. He said that at Commission direction staff is 
presently conducting a survey on new concession ideas. He said that 
the result of that survey could impact the space adjacent to the 
barbershop as well as some of the space currently included in the 
barbershop lease. Mr. Turpen said that rather than move forward with 
the lease as it exits it would be prudent for the Commission to allow 
an extension so that they might have the opportunity to fully consider 
the result of the concession survey. 



4. Approval of Temporary Offices for Alaska Airlines in Lower Level of 
of Boarding Area ' B 1 

No. 86-0018 

Mr. Turpen explained that as part of the M & R Program we've had to 
move Alaska Airlines around. This resolution authorizes funds to 
construct offices for Alaska Airlines as part of the reconstruction 
program. He said that it is the Airport's obligation under Commission 
policy to pay for these types of moves. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there wasn't some space available so 
that the Airport could save $50,000.00. 

Mr. Turpen responded that we have exhausted those areas of potential 
use and there is no available space for Alaska Airlines where they 
would be anywhere near their operation. He said that for a period of 
time they were operating their flights from the South Terminal and had 
offices in the North Terminal. Mr. Turpen said that this is consistent 
with our obligation to the airlines and consistent with Commission 
policy on the M & R Program. 



5. Professional Services Agreement - Tracor, Inc. - $10,000.00 
No. 86-0019 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 8 



Mr. Turpen said that this item is self-explanatory, but pointed out 
that paragraph one is not exactly correct. . .the lawsuit has been filed 
in the Shearwater case, however, the suit had not yet been filed when 
this memo was prepared. 

Mr. Turpen said that Tracor is internationally renown as the expert in 
the effects of aircraft noise... what generates aircraft noise, how it's 
generated, and how it is processed through the envirnoment. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was anyone on staff who could 
handle this. 

Mr. Turpen responded that since the Airport is in litigation an 
independent expert is best. 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

6. Retirment Resolution: 
Willie Bible 

No. 86-0020 



7. Award of Airport Contract No. 1492: 
Perimeter Road Reconstruction 

No. 86-0021 

Resolution awarding Contract No. 1492 
to 0. C. Jones & Sons in the amount of 
$320,018.00. Seven bids were received 
on December 3, 1985, ranging from 
$320,018.00 to $397,020.00. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that the Airport is getting bids that are 
less than the projected amount. He said he looked at the list and did 
not find any MBE/WBE designation for the list. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, responded that this project is funded by a grant from the 
FAA and as such the MBE participation in terms of joint ventures does 
not apply. He said that there are minority requirements in terms of 
subcontractors and those have been adheared to and certified by the 
Human Rights Commission. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the reason it did not come under the City 
ordinance was because it was Federal money. 

Mr. Bouey responded that that was correct, adding that the City 
ordinance specifically exempts those cases. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he was impressed with the fact that even 
without those contingencies we are considerably under the projected 
amount. He said that the argument cannot be made that the cost of doing 
business has increased because of the Affirmative Action program. 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 9 



Mr. Bouey mentioned that this contract is 20% MBE and 4.1% WBE. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was a contract in dispute because 
of minority hiring practices. 

Mr. Bouey responded that there is another contract which has been bid 
but has not yet been before the Commission. He said that one of the 
companies that lost the bid wrote to Mr. Turpen and Commissioner 
Bernstein. 



Award of Airport Contract No. 1521R: 
Garage Signing, Electronic Display Units 

No, 86-0022 Resolution awarding Contract No. 

1521R to Albert Electric Company in 
the amount of $53,800.00 

Six bids were received on December 
20, 1985 ranging from $53,800.00 to 
$95,000.00. 



Declaration of Emergency - Airport Contract No. 1687: 
Power Cable Replacement 
Cable 12TAAM-1 

No. 86-0023 Resolution declaring the existence of 

an emergency in the failure of Power 
Cable 12TAAM-1 serving Airport and 
tenant facilities boardering San 
Francisco Bay; directing the Director 
of Airports to effect the necessary 
replacement and requesting the 
Controller to certify funds needed to 
effect such repairs in the amount of 
$24,000.00. 



10. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 86-0024 Resolution approving Travel /Training 

for Airports Commission representa- 
tives. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Bernstein regretfully announced that Bill Coblentz has 
resigned from the Commission and said his resignation is a tremendous 
loss to the City. He said that the Commission must now elect a Vice 
President to fill his unexpired term and that it was his privilege to 
nominate Ed Fleishell who has been a very diligent worker on the 
Commi ssion. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis seconded the nomination. 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 10 



The vote to elect Commissioner Fleishell Vice President was unanimous. 
No. 86-0025 



Commissioner Fleishell asked staff to draft a resolution honoring the 
long time and very valued services of Bill Coblentz. He also asked that 
before putting it on the calendar that the draft be sent to each member 
of the Commission so that they might have the opportunity for some 
individual input. 



Commissioner Fleishell asked if the legal staff would research the 
possibility of drafting a law to require any subdivision where other 
construction, within the 65 decible range of the area, would require the 
consent of the Airports Commission. He asked for a determination if 
such a law could be drafted and be constitutional and for a backup 
position. He said that other industries have done this and cited the 
construction industry as an example. He explained that whenever they 
have a local problem they go to Sacramento and solve it. He does not 
know why the Commission can't do the same thing. 

Mr. Turpen asked if it would specifically pertain to residential 
dwel 1 ings . 

Commissioner Fleishell responded that it should cover everything, 
including the hotel built in the path of our runway. 



Commissioner Goosby said he received a communication regarding 
adverti sing on coaches. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that staff is preparing a reply to that letter. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission's intent was clear when they 
incorporated the provision in the contract. We have a contract with SFO 
Airporter; clearly the Commission's intent was to preclude advertising 
on the outside of the buses. Since this was clearly the Commission's 
intent we simply said that Airporter needed permission in order to do 
this. Since they did not have permission they were asked to remove the 
advertising. He said that Airporter then went out and secured legal 
counsel to try and muddy the issue. Mr. Turpen said that as far as he 
was concerned the issue is very clear. Airporter signed an agreement, 
clearly understanding what the intent was. Now, because they don't 
agree with the intent, they are going to try and find a legal way to 
circumvent the agreement. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that we now have a contract that's. going out 
to bid on this same subject. He said that Mr. Turpen should poll every- 
one to determine if there is any question in the minds of the Commission 
as to whether or not we should permit advertising and reflect the 
sharing of that revenue in the new contract. 

Commissioner Goosby said he knew he was in the minority but he wanted to 
raise the point. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he was also for advertising. 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 11 



CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



* * * 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:45 A.M. to go into closed session. 





Jejan Caramatti 
Lmission Secretary 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 12 



X 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

;; & 1986 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIRPApv 



MINUTES 



^ JANUARY 21, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

JANUARY 21 , 1986 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 



Resolution 
Number Page 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

December 17, 1985 86-0013 
January 7, 1986 86-0014 



ITEMS INITIATED BY 
COMMISSIONERS: 

Election of Vice- 
President of 
Commission 86-0025 10-11 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINIS- 
TRATION, OPERATIONS, AND 
MAINTENANCE: 

1. Airports Commission Budget 

for Fiscal Year 1986/87 86-0015 3-5 

2. Consideration of United Air- 
lines Petition to Airports 
Commission Requesting Waiver 
of Commission Policy to Allow 
International Departures from 
the North Terminal Domestic 

Facility 86-0016 . 5-8 

3. Lease of Barber Shop/Month- 

to-Month Hold Over 86-0017 8 

4. Approval of Temporary 
Offices for Alaska Air- 
1 ines in Lower Level of 

Boarding Area 'B' 86-0018 8 

5. Professional Services 
Agreement - Tracor, Inc. - 

$10,000.00 86-0019 8-9 



F CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

6. Retirement Resolution: 

Willie Bible 86-0020 9 

7. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1492: Perimeter Road 

Reconstruction 86-0021 9-10 

8. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1521R: Garage Signing, 

Electronic Display Units 86-0022 10 

9. Declaration of Emergency: 
Airport Contract No. 1687 - 
Power Cable Replacement 

12TAAM-1 86-0023 10 

10. Request for Approval of 

Travel /Training for Air- 
ports Commission Repre- 
sentatives 86-0024 10 

G. CORRESPONDENCE: 12 

H. CLOSED SESSION: 3 

I ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 12 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

January 21 , 1986 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order 
at 9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein 

Z. L. Goosby 
J. Edward Fleishell 
Athena Tsougarakis 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the following regular meetings were adopted by order of 
the Airports Commission. 

No. 86-0013 December 17, 1985 

No. 86-0014 January 7, 1986 



CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting recessed at 9:02 AM to go into closed session and reconvened 
at 9:30 AM. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airport's General Counsel, announced that the closed 
session just concluded by the Commission was held for the purpose of 
discussing litigation matters. 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 
The following items was unanimously adopted. 
1. Airports Commission Budget for Fiscal Year 1986/87 
No. 86-0015 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 3 



Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, reminded the Commission that due to 
the accident on Highway 101 on January 7 several airline representa- 
tives were unable to attend the Public Hearing on the budget. He 
indicated to the Commission at the time that staff was continuing to 
work with the airlines on several items of concern in the Airport 
budget. He added that that process continues. He said that there are a 
number of things that the airlines have asked us about and we will 
commit to continue to work with them to try to resolve those concerns. 

Mr. Turpen said that the budget is due in the Mayor's Office on February 
1st. He said it would be appropriate for the Commission to pass it at 
this time with the understanding that there may be further reductions in 
the budget between now and the first of February, consistent with our 
discussions with the airlines. He said that there will be no additions 
to the budget prior to February 1st but there could possibly be some 
reductions. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Jim Chamberlain of Delta Airlines if 
he wished to address the Commission. 

Mr. Chamberlain said that he was happy to hear Mr. Turpen 1 s comments 
about continuing to work with the airlines. He said that they have had 
intensive meetings with Airport staff on some items of deep concern in 
the budget... not the least of which is the magnitude of the budget. He 
said he was pleased that the airlines would have the opportunity to 
continue to discuss the budget with Mr. Turpen and his staff. 

Mr. Chamberlain added that it was his understanding that the Mayor also 
expressed some concern about the size of the budget. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that in the past when the budget came along 
the Commission would be advised of those areas where the airlines and 
other interested parties were at variance with the staff. He felt that 
the Commission should be advised of concerns expressed by the airlines 
and of the staff responses. 

Mr. Turpen responded that staff will do that. He asked Commissioner 
Fleishell if he wanted a follow-up letter to staff's meeting with the 
airl ines. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he would like that. 

Commissioner Goosby asked about the other staff person anticipated for 
the City Attorney's office. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that positions for one attorney and one 
secretary have been budgeted. 

Mr. Garibaldi added that it was his understanding that it was a 
Commission policy that more litigation matters were to be handled 
in-house. He said that that appears to be the City Attorney' s- direction 
as wel 1 . 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if the Airport was billed additionally for 
work handled by the City Attorney's office downtown. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that we are. He explained that the cases that 
go downtown are those that either require some particular expertise that 
we don't have at the Airport or we don't have the personnel to handle 
it. He cited the prevailing wage ordinance as an example and explained 
that it had ramifications beyond just the Airports Commission. He said 
that all the construction litigation is handled at the Airport; every- 
thing else that comes up is handled by our staff at the Airport. 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 4 



Commissioner Bernstein said that since there will be an addition to the 
Airport's legal staff more cases should be handled in-house. 

Mr. Garibaldi said that it was his understanding that that is what the 
Commission desires. 

Mr. Garibaldi added that all the construction litigation by outside 
counsel was concluded in 1984. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked why we need to hire another attorney when 
the construction program has essentially been finished. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that the litigation is just beginning. We have 
an informal complaint presented to us in the last couple of weeks from 
Tutor-Sal iba for $7-mi 1 1 ion . We have claims from Fishbach & Moore and 
litigation with architects, all of which are being handled in-house. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if existing staff could handle these cases. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded not with the present magnitude of the cases. 
He added that construction litigation, especially, becomes a paper war. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that if he ran a business that had a 
temporary situation such as construction that would end within a 
reasonable period of time and then the litigation, inevitable though it 
might be, would end he would not inflate his staff and then later use 
Parkinson's law to inflate the work to keep the additional attorney 
busy. 

Commissioner Goosby commented on the $9,000 video taping machine for 
the Community Affairs office. He said that on the face of it he could 
not see why one was necessary just to read press clippings. 

Mr. Turpen said that as an administrative matter the budget must go 
forward today. He said that staff is liable to reduce the budget 
further as a result of meetings with the airlines. He added that if, 
in the future, the Commission wished to adjust the budget it could be 
done through the Mayor's Office. 

Commissioner Fleishell recommended adopting the budget with the 
understanding that any item could be dealt with along the way. 



The following is a verbatim transcript of Item 2. 

2. Consideration of United Airlines Petition to Airports Commission 
Requesting Waiver of Commission Policy to Allow International 
Departures from the North Terminal Domestic Facility. 

No. 86-0016 

Mr. Turpen: The Commission has before you a revised resolution 
presented to you this morning wherein the last resolve was modified to 
say: "Resolved this Commission hereby affirms the Director's refusal 
of United Airlines request to enplane passengers from the North 
Terminal facilities in accord with the authority granted to the 
Director in Rule and Regulation 1.5.19." 

I believe there may be some speakers on this matter. I would suggest 

that possibly the Commission hear first those individuals who wish to 

address the Commission and then I'll be happy to respond to any 
questions the Commission may have. 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 5 



Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Laveroni . 

Mr. Paul Laveroni, Attorney for Duty Free Shoppers: Mr. President, we 
put our names in on behalf of Duty Free Shoppers and there are some 
others. We made a presentation at the last hearing, in your absence, 
and we have just indicated that if there are other speakers who would 
like to hear from us again on points raised we would be happy to do so. 

Commissioner Bernstein: I think everyone would like to hear from you 
but I don't know if it's necessary. 



Mr. Laveroni: We'd like to reserve our space until the end. If there 
are any questions or comments as a result of other people's comments 
we'd be happy to address you. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. Does that go for Mr. Gary Hahn? 
Mr. Laveroni: Mr. Hahn and Mr. Lyons are here as well. 
Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Joe Lyons. 
Mr. Lyons: We're all together. 
Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Hicks. 



Mr. Steve Hicks, Skyline Candy: I'm not with them but I will wait. My 
attorney spoke last time. 



President Bernstein: Mr. Paul Van Wert, 



Mr. Alan Wayne, United Airlines: President Bernstein, Members of the 

Commission, my name is Alan Wayne, I'm Director of Public Affairs for 

United Airlines. With me is Paul Van Wert who is Regional Airport 
Affairs Administrator. 

All of you have received a letter over the signature of Steve Steers, 
our Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Western Division, 
responding to comments and discussion that was held with Mr. Turpen 
last Thursday on our plan to operate our international operations. If 
I may pull from that letter a couple salient points. 

It is our opinion that there are compelling operational marketing and 
economic reasons for our plan to operate our international departures 
out of the North Terminal. We are convinced this action is entirely 
consistent with United's legal rights under its lease and use agreement 
with the City and County of San Francisco; that this is the proper 
course of United to provide convenient, reliable and competitive 
service for travellers and enhance San Francisco's position as a major 
international gateway in the third largest hub on United's system, 
where we will be approaching 300 daily arrivals and departures. We are 
asking the City, as we have discussed with all of you and the Airports 
Commission, to recognize that United will be exercising its rights to 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 6 



operate its international departures from the North Terminal effective 
January 28th and for assistance in providing support activities related 
to Duty Free, Foreign Exchange, signage and facility modifications. As 
the largest carrier serving the Airport, we have had a long and 
mutually beneficial relationship with the City. We are hopeful, very 
hopeful, of resolving this matter prior to January 28th. It would be 
extremely unfortunate for United, the City, and the travelling public 
if this service begins without the many amenities that the travelling 
publ ic is accustomed to. 

I should add, based on information received this morning, and in the 
interest of keeping the communications open between all of us... As you 
know, talks have been going on with the Japanese in Tokyo last week 
over Japanese concerns about granting us landing rights. It's been 
well reported in the press. Those talks ended last Friday; they 
resumed in Washington on Sunday; they ended last night. We anticipate 
that there will be some sort of announcement coming from United today 
with respect to a slight delay in the start-up date. However, and I 
want to stress this, that in no way changes the position of the company 
with respect to the points made in the letter to all of you dated 
January 20th. Thank you. 



Mr. Turpen: Paul, do you care to say anything? 



Mr. Paul Van Wert, United Airlines: Does anybody have any questions? 
I was up here in case anyone had questions. 



Commissioner Goosby: Are the people in the audience aware of the 
resolution that we're about to pass? 



Mr. Turpen: The thrust of the resolution is the same, 



Commissioner Goosby: The thrust of the resolution is the same; just 
some minor wording changes and I just want to be sure that if there was 
anybody present who wanted to speak to this that they knew what we are 
getting ready to pass. 



Mr. Hicks: What are you getting ready to pass? 



Mr. Turpen: For the benefit of those persons in the audience who may 
not have the resolution before them, the Airports Commission is 
presently considering the petition of United Airlines to allow United 
to operate from the North Terminal facility with its international 
departures, specifically those departures which it has purchased from 
Pan Am. The Airports Commission Resolution, which is being considered 
presently, would deny that petition and require that United Airlines 
operate from the International Terminal facility, consistent with the 
master plan and Commission policy. 



Mr. Hicks: Well, if you're about to pass that then I won't say 
anything. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Anything further? 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 7 



Mr. Turpen: Other than any questions the Commission has 



Commissioner Bernstein: Before I vote, I'd like to explain my vote. 

I'm in accord with the philosophy of the Commission and the Airport, 
definitely. However, I do think that in the interest of business and 
both parties that I'm just amazed that there hasn't been more dialogue 
and that there hasn't been some movement. The positions have been 
intractible on both sides. I find it incomprehensible but nevertheless 
I'm hopeful that there will be some resolution. In the meantime, in an 
effort to maintain a unanimous decision so that the Airports Commission 
remains together, I'm going to vote for it. I find myself in a very a 
pecul iar position. 



3. Lease of Barber Shop/Month-to-Month Hold-Over 

No. 86-0017 

Mr. Turpen said that the barbershop lease in the North Connector is 
expiring. This resolution gives staff permission to carry it over on c 
month-to-month basis. He said that at Commission direction staff is 
presently conducting a survey on new concession ideas. He said that 
the result of that survey could impact the space adjacent to the 
barbershop as well as some of the space currently included in the 
barbershop lease. Mr. Turpen said that rather than move forward with 
the lease as it exits it would be prudent for the Commission to allow 
an extension so that they might have the opportunity to fully consider 
the result of the concession survey. 



4. Approval of Temporary Offices for Alaska Airlines in Lower Level of 
of Boarding Area ' B' 

No. 86-0018 

Mr. Turpen explained that as part of the M & R Program we've had to 
move Alaska Airlines around. This resolution authorizes funds to 
construct offices for Alaska Airlines as part of the reconstruction 
program. He said that it is the Airport's obligation under Commission 
policy to pay for these types of moves. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there wasn't some space available so 
that the Airport could save $50,000.00. 

Mr. Turpen responded that we have exhausted those areas of potential 
use and there is no available space for Alaska Airlines where they 
would be anywhere near their operation. He said that for a period of 
time they were operating their flights from the South Terminal and had 
offices in the North Terminal. Mr. Turpen said that this is consistent 
with our obligation to the airlines and consistent with Commission 
policy on the M & R Program. 



5. Professional Services Agreement - Tracor, Inc. - $10,000.00 
No. 86-0019 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 8 



Mr. Turpen said that this item is self-explanatory, but pointed out 
that paragraph one is not exactly correct. . .the lawsuit has been filed 
in the Shearwater case, however, the suit had not yet been filed when 
this memo was prepared. 

Mr. Turpen said that Tracor is internationally renown as the expert in 
the effects of aircraft noise... what generates aircraft noise, how it's 
generated, and how it is processed through the envirnoment. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was anyone on staff who could 
handle this. 

Mr. Turpen responded that since the Airport is in litigation an 
independent expert is best. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

6. Retirment Resolution: 
Willie Bible 

No. 86-0020 



7. Award of Airport Contract No. 1492: 
Perimeter Road Reconstruction 

No. 86-0021 

Resolution awarding Contract No. 1492 
to 0. C. Jones & Sons in the amount of 
$320,018.00. Seven bids were received 
on December 3, 1985, ranging from 
$320,018.00 to $397,020.00. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that the Airport is getting bids that are 
less than the projected amount. He said he looked at the list and did 
not find any MBE/WBE designation for the list. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, responded that this project is funded by a grant from the 
FAA and as such the MBE participation in terms of joint ventures does 
not apply. He said that there are minority requirements in terms of 
subcontractors and those have been adheared to and certified by the 
Human Rights Commission. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the reason it did not come under the City 
ordinance was because it was Federal money. 

Mr. Bouey responded that that was correct, adding that the City 
ordinance specifically exempts those cases. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he was impressed with the fact that even 
without those contingencies we are considerably under the projected 
amount. He said that the argument cannot be made that the cost of doing 
business has increased because of the Affirmative Action program. 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 9 



Mr. Bouey mentioned that this contract is 201 MBE and 4.1% WBE. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was a contract in dispute because 
of minority hiring practices. 

Mr. Bouey responded that there is another contract which has been bid 
but has not yet been before the Commission. He said that one of the 
companies that lost the bid wrote to Mr. Turpen and Commissioner 
Bernstein. 



Award of Airport Contract No. 1521R: 
Garage Signing, Electronic Display Units 

No, 86-0022 Resolution awarding Contract No. 

1521R to Albert Electric Company in 
the amount of $53,800.00 

Six bids were received on December 
20, 1985 ranging from $53,800.00 to 
$95,000.00. 



Declaration of Emergency - Airport Contract No. 1687: 
Power Cable Replacement 
Cable 12TAAM-1 

No. 86-0023 Resolution declaring the existence of 

an emergency in the failure of Power 
Cable 12TAAM-1 serving Airport and 
tenant facilities boardering San 
Francisco Bay; directing the Director 
of Airports to effect the necessary 
replacement and requesting the 
Controller to certify funds needed to 
effect such repairs in the amount of 
$24,000.00. 



10. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 86-0024 Resolution approving Travel /Training 

for Airports Commission representa- 
tives. 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Bernstein regretfully announced that Bill Coblentz has 
resigned from the Commission and said his resignation is a tremendous 
loss to the City. He said that the Commission must now elect a Vice 
President to fill his unexpired term and that it was his privilege to 
nominate Ed Flei shell who has been a very diligent worker on the 
Commi ssion. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis seconded the nomination. 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 10 



The vote to elect Commissioner Flei shell Vice President was unanimous 
No. 86-0025 



Commissioner Flei shell asked staff to draft a resolution honoring the 
long time and very valued services of Bill Coblentz. He also asked that 
before putting it on the calendar that the draft be sent to each member 
of the Commission so that they might have the opportunity for some 
individual input. 



Commissioner Flei shell asked if the legal staff would research the 
possibility of drafting a law to require any subdivision where other 
construction, within the 65 decible range of the area, would require the 
consent of the Airports Commission. He asked for a determination if 
such a law could be drafted and be constitutional and for a backup 
position. He said that other industries have done this and cited the 
construction industry as an example. He explained that whenever they 
have a local problem they go to Sacramento and solve it. He does not 
know why the Commission can't do the same thing. 

Mr. Turpen asked if it would specifically pertain to residential 
dwel 1 ings . 

Commissioner Fleishell responded that it should cover everything, 
including the hotel built in the path of our runway. 



Commissioner Goosby said he received a communication regarding 
advertising on coaches. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that staff is preparing a reply to that letter. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission's intent was clear when they 
incorporated the provision in the contract. We have a contract with SFO 
Airporter; clearly the Commission's intent was to preclude advertising 
on the outside of the buses. Since this was clearly the Commission's 
intent we simply said that Airporter needed permission in order to do 
this. Since they did not have permission they were asked to remove the 
advertising. He said that Airporter then went out and secured legal 
counsel to try and muddy the issue. Mr. Turpen said that as far as he 
was concerned the issue is very clear. Airporter signed an agreement, 
clearly understanding what the intent was. Now, because they don't 
agree with the intent, they are going to try and find a legal way to 
circumvent the agreement. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that we now have a contract that's going out 
to bid on this same subject. He said that Mr. Turpen should poll every- 
one to determine if there is any question in the minds of the Commission 
as to whether or not we should permit advertising and reflect the 
sharing of that revenue in the new contract. 

Commissioner Goosby said he knew he was in the minority but he wanted to 
raise the point. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he was also for advertising. 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 11 



CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



* * * 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:45 A.M. to go into closed session. 





Jefan Caramatti 
immission Secretary 



Minutes, January 21, 1986, Page 12 






SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

RPR P. 5 1986 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBPADV 



MINUTES 



■£1 FEBRUARY 4, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

February 4, 1986 



Calendar 


Agenda 




Section 


Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 



Resolution 
Number Page 



C. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 



Progress Report on the 1-380 

Highway Construction Program 3-4 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

2. Award of Contract No. 1325R: 
Maintenance Facility Improvements 

Auto Maintenance Shop 86-0026 4 

3. Award of Contract No. 1607: 
Demolition of North Field 

Structures 86-0027 4-5 

4. Award of Contract 1416AB: 
Boarding Area 'C and Aprons 

Approximately $2 3-Mi 1 1 i on 5-6 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

5. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1691: Underground Fuel 

Storage Tanks 86-0028 

6. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1642: Monitoring Wells, 
Underground Storage Tank, 

Phase 'I' 86-0029 

7. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1626: Clean Up Area, 

Northwest of Plot 40 86-0030 



Tenant Improvements: 

TWA Baggage Conveyor System 

Expansion - South Terminal 

Leasehold Improvements - 

(T-3032) 86-0031 

Approval of Claims Settlement 86-0032 
COMMUNICATIONS: 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 
SESSION: 



Minutes, February 4, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

February 4, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Absent: Morris Bernstein, President 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Progress Report on the 1-380 Highway Construction Program 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that the project is ahead of 
schedule and will be completed in the Spring of 1987. The first 
phase of the project will be opened up in the next 30-60 days. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if that phase included the permanent access 
to the West of Bayshore. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it does. He explained that this phase will 
open up the southbound off-ramp from Highway 101 onto the Airport. 
The old southbound off-ramp will then be torn down. 

Commissioner Goosby asked about the status of the West of Bayshore 
property in conjunction with the Real Estate Department. 

Mr. Turpen responded that staff has had three meetings with the City 
Planning and Real Estate Departments. He said that extensive 
information was provided to them on that property. It is his 
understanding that the Real Estate Department is presently preparing 
a report for Mayor Feinstein on the available options. 

Commissioner Goosby asked about the status of the development of the 
Master Plan. 



Minutes, February 4, 1986, Page 3 



Mr. Turpen responded that both groups were hired and approximately 10 
days ago he met with representatives of Daniel, Mann, Johnson and 
Mendenhall (DMJM) to discuss the overview of the Master Plan. He 
said the Commission's interests with regard to evaluating the West of 
Bayshore as a potential reliever site for certain Airport activities 
was discussed. He told the Conmission that the contracts are being 
finalized and signed and they should begin their study within the 
next 90 days. 

Commissioner Goosby hoped that they will work in cooperation with the 
Real Estate and City Planning Departments. He said that this was an 
excellent opportunity for the Airport to establish its needs for that 
area. He asked Mr. Turpen to suggest to the Real Estate and City 
Planning Departments that a committee be established to handle this. 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

2. Award of Contract No. 1325R 

Maintenance Facility Improvements 
Auto Maintenance Shop 

No. 86-0026 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1325R. 

Five bids were received on December 
19, 1985 with the amounts ranging from 
$177,000.00 to $225,598.00 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if the problem with the Human Rights 
Commission had been straigthened out. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it had. 

Commissioner Goosby noted that we were once again under the 
construction budget. 

There was no one present who wished to address the Commission on this 
item. 



Award of Contract No. 1607 
Demolition of North Field Structures 

No. 86-0027 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1607 

to Ferma Corporation in the amount of 
$124,500.00. 

Six bids were received on December 19, 
1985, with the amounts ranging from 
$114,500.00 to $286,000.00. 



Minutes, February 4, 1986, Page 4 



Mr. Turpen explained that in the Airport north field, an area behind 
the United maintenance base, there are several old structures that 
have fallen into a state of disrepair. He has directed staff to 
develop a program to clean up the north field, get rid of those 
structures and bring that area up to the same standard that the rest 
of the Airport observes. He said that they are not only an eyesore 
but a hazard as well. Mr. Turpen said that this contract is the 
first phase of a complete north field rejuvenation which will clear 
the area out and prepare it for some future use. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if there were tentative proposals for that 
area. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there were no proposals at this time. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the seaplane harbor was still being used. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it is not being used for anything at this 
time. He explained that Mr. Bouey is currently working with the 
Corps of Engineers to maintain the channel into the harbor from the 
bay. He said that this channel gives the Airport an access and an 
egress from the Airport in the event of an emergency, such as an 
earthquake. Mr. Turpen said that at one time there was talk about 
filling it in and recovering property from the bay but that idea was 
abandoned as impractical. 

Commissioner Goosby hoped that thought was being given as to what use 
that area could be put in order to generate additional revenue for 
the City. 

The following item was put over. 

4. Award of Contract 1416AB: 

Boarding Area 'C and Aprons 
Approximately $23-Million 

Five bids were received on January 22, 
1986. Pending Human Rights 
Commission's approval of Minority/ 
Women Business Preference, Local 
Business Preference, and Affirmative 
Action Plans, Contract 1416AB may be 
awarded to one of the following 
apparent low bidders: 

Tutor-Sal iba Corporation & 
Universal Insulation 

Lathrop Construction Association., 
Inc. 

Williams & Burrows, Inc. & 
Continental Heller Corp." 

Determination of recipient of contract 
will be made by the Human Rights 
Commission based on claims of 
MBE/WBE/LBE bid preference under the 
City's Administrative Code. This item 
is calendared in anticipation that HRC 
will have made the determination in 
respect to bid preferences prior to 
the Airports Commission meeting on 



Minutes, February 4, 1986, Page 5 



February 4, 1986. If HRC has not made 
the determination by Commission 
meeting time, this item will be taken 
off calendar at the Commission meeting. 



Mr. Turpen asked that this item be put over as the Human Rights 
Commission has not yet completed their review. 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 

5. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1691: 
Underground Fuel Storage Tanks 

No. 85-0028 Resolution approving the final plans 

and specifications and authorizing the 
Director to call for bids for Airport 
Contract No. 1691, Underground Fuel 
Storage Tanks. 

6. Bid Call - Airport Contract 1642: 

Monitoring Wells, Underground Storage Tank, Phase 'I' 

No. 86-0029 Resolution approving the final plans 

and specifications and authorizing the 
Director to call for bids for Airport 
Contract No. 1621, Monitoring Wells, 
Underground Storage Tank, Phase 'I*. 

7. Bid Call - Airport Contract 1626: 
Clean Up Area, Northwest of Plot 40 

No. 85-0030 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract No. 1626 and 
authorizing the Director to call for 
bids. 



Tenant Improvement: 

TWA Baggage Conveyor System Expansion - South Terminal Leasehold 

Improvements - (T-3032) 

No. 86-0031 Construction of the baggage conveyor 

system canopy and the installation and 
renovation of conveyor equipment - 
$1,300,00. No cost to Airport. 



9. Approval of Claims Settlement 

No. 85-0032 Resolution approving the Settlement of 

Claims not exceeding $2,500.00 for the 
period July to December, 1985. Total 
Claims - $6,395.08. 



Minutes, February 4, 1986, Page 6 



* * * 



G. COMMUNICATIONS: 

There were no items raised by the Commission 



* * * 



I. ADJOURNMENT TOGO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:10 AM to go into closed session. 




Je'an Caramatti 
amission Secretary 



Minutes, February 4, 1986, Page 7 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEP.T. 

I % 5 1986 

SAN FRANCISCO 



MINUTES 



FEBRUARY 18, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

February 18, 1985 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 


AGENDA 
ITEM 


TITLE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF M 



RESOLUTION 

NUMBER PAGE 



Regular meetings of: 

November 19, 1985 86-0034 

December 3, 1985 86-0035 

January 21, 1985 86-0036 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



SPECIAL ITEMS: 

Resolution Commending 

Commissioner William K. 

Coblentz 86-0037 

Retirement Resolution: 

Warren Wong 86-0038 



Announcement re: Public 

Hearing on Q707 300C 4 

DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Report on Unregulated 

Smarte Carte Collectors 4-5 

Status Report on the San 

Francisco Garter Snake Study 5 

Report on Award of Contract 

1416AB: Boarding Area 'C 

& Aprons - Approximately 

$23-Mi 1 1 ion 5-6 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 6 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

6. Resolution Awarding Financial 

Services Lease 86-0039 6-7 



7. $50,000 Supplemental Appropriat- 
ion for Security 86-0040 7 

8. Approval of Budget for Professional 
Services Contract with 0'Brien- 
Krietzberg & Associates, Inc. - 
Contract Amendment No. 7 - 

$850,000 86-0041 7-8 

9. Barber Shop/Beauty Salon - 
Authorization for Pre-B1d 

Conference 86-0042 8-9 

10. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1692: Office Relocation - 

Third Floor, North Terminal 86-0043 9 

11. Authorization for Pre-Bid 
Conference: Electronic 

Information Display 9 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATE MATTERS: 

12. Type II Modifications for Two 

South Terminal Complex 86-0044 
Construction Contracts 86-0045 10 

13. Tenant Improvement: 

Airport Hilton Plot 2 86-0046 10 

14. Travel/Training for Airports 

Commission Representatives 86-0047 10 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

15. Hearing Recommending an 

Increase in Rental Rates for 

Permitted Cargo Space 10-11 



CORRESPONDENCE: 11 



M. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: . 11 



Minutes, February 18, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

February 18, 1986 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 

Absent: 



J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Morris Bernstein, President 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the following regular meetings were adopted by order of the 
Commission President: 



No. 86-0034 
No. 86-0035 
No. 86-0036 



November 19, 1985 
December 3, 1985 
January 21 , 1986 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
86-0033 regarding the settlement of an 
unl i ti gated claim at the Closed 
Session of February 4, 1986. 



Minutes, February 18, 1986, Page 3 



SPECIAL ITEM: 

The following items were uanimously adopted. 

1. Resolution Commending Commissioner William K. Coblentz 

No. 86-0037 Resolution commending Commissioner 

William K. Coblentz for his fifteen 
years of dedicated service on the 
Airports Commission. 



2. Retirement Resolution: 
Warren Wong 

No. 86-0038 



Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that consistent with Airports 
Commission noise regulation 78-0131 there will be a public hearing 
scheduled for the March 18, 1986 Commission meeting on the petition 
of Southern Air Transport on the behalf of Burlington Northern Air 
Freight, Inc. for a waiver to the Airports Commission's regulations 
and applicable air operations bulletins to permit operation of the 
Boeing 707 300C aircraft at San Francisco International Airport. A 
Notice of Public Hearing has been placed In the appropriate 
publication in compliance with the rule that such notice be given 30 
days prior to the hearing. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked who, besides the petitioner, received 
notice. 

Mr. Turpen responded the Roundtable, CalTrans and communities 
surrounding the Airport. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

3. Report on Unregulated Smarte Carte Collectors 

Report on unregulated Smarte Carte 
collectors at the San Francisco 
International Airport from November 1 
1985 to January 1 , 1986. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that this report was self 
explanatory. Staff has met with Smarte Carte and is now working on 
an alternative whereby the 25£ return would be eliminated for a 
period of 30-60 days. Staff fully believes that this will go a long 
way towards mitigating against the problem. He hoped that by the 
next meeting he would have some tangible Information in terms of the 
specific dates of the test. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the problem Is the 25tf return; If 
the quarter is eliminated why wouldn't that solve the problem? 



Minutes, February 18, 1986, Page 4 



Mr. Turpen responded that rather than returning the carts for the 25# 

they might try to sell them. He said that as part of this program 

Smarte Carte will provide enough people to return the carts to the 
racks. 

Commissioner Flei shell said that when he returned several weeks ago 
from Mexico the situation was as bad as ever. He said that an 
Airport employee was offering carts to a woman who was returning them 
for the quarters. 

Commissioner Goosby said that Smarte Carte will pick up the extra 25£ 
which will cover the cost of additional employees needed to retrieve 
the carts. 



4. Status Report on the San Francisco Garter Snake Study 

Quarterly report on the San Francisco 
Garter Snake Study in the Airport's 
West of Bayshore property. 

Mr. Turpen said the study has been completed and the Commission will 
receive a final report. He said that as part of the final report 
staff insisted that mitigation measures be included in anticipation 
of any environmental statement the Airport might want to prepare for 
that property. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the report will make conclusions or 
offer recommendations. 

Mr. Turpen responded that conclusions will be drawn. He reminded the 
Commission that one of the reasons for doing the report early on was 
so that it would not necessarily block anything the Airport wanted to 
do West of Bayshore. Once the Airport decides what it wants to do 
with that property we are six months away from establishing 
mitigation measures. He said that if we can't agree on the 
mitigation measures he said we will have to go before the Secretary 
of the Interior. 

Commissioner Goosby asked for reports or minutes of the meetings held 
held by the Task Force on the West of Bayshore. 

Mr. Turpen said he will talk with Wally Wortman, Director of Property 
for the City, who is spearheading the downtown effort to review 
potential use for the West of Bayshore property for the Mayor. He 
said that in the event that review results in the West of Bayshore 
property coming back to the Airport our task force has already been 
established and will file reports with the Commission. 



5. Report on Award of Contract 1416AB: 
Boarding Area 'C & Aprons 
Approximately $23-Mi 1 1 i on 

Mr. Turpen said that this was a self-explanatory report on Contract 
1416AB and asked Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and 
Construction, to brief the Commission. 

Mr. Yuen said bids were received on this project about a month ago 
and staff had planned to award the contract at the last Commission 
meeting. He explained that the Human Rights Commission was not able 
to approve the award because it could not verify the bid preference 
or the affirmative action plan of the bidders. 



Minutes, February 18, 1986, Page 5 



Mr. Yuen said that a letter was sent by the attorney for Trans-Bay/ 
Lathrop protesting Tutor-Sal i ba ' s bid, claiming that they are not a 
bonafide MBE, LBE or WBE. The letter also protested Williams and 
Burrows bid on the basis that they are not a bonafide LBE and filed 
their bid one-minute late. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked what the Airport uses for official time. 

Mr. Yuen responded that each bid is time-stamped and that machine is 
set with the time given out by the telephone company. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the offical time is Universal 
Coordinated Time in London. He said that there is a frequency on the 
radio that announces the time by a time signal. He said that this is 
the official source and should be used in the event of a lawsuit. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that staff exercised the precaution of 
calling the phone company and that is the source that is commonly 
used. 

Mr. Turpen asked how many bidders have come in within one minute. 

Mr. Yuen responded that about 20% of the bidders come in within the 
last half minute. 

Mr. Yuen told the Commission that a decision must be made to either 
increase the budget to pay for overtime work in order to maintain the 
original completion date, or, to extend the completion date. 

The Commission felt that since this is the end of the project 
delaying the completion date would have a minimal impact. The 
decision was made to extend the completion date. 

Mr. Yuen said he will prepare the resolution for award, extending the 
completion date, for the next Commission meeting. 

Commissioner Tsougaraki suggested that in the future staff allow lead 
time for the Human Rights Commission. 

Mr. Yuen responded that the Human Rights Commission had asked for ten 
days but did not realize this was a large contract. 



G. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners. 

* * * 

H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

6. Resolution Awarding Financial Services Lease 

No. 86-0039 Resolution awarding Financial Services 

Lease to Bank of America N.T. & S.A. 



Minutes, February 18, 1986, Page 6 



The Rule of Necessity was invoked allowing Commissioner Tsougarakis 
to vote on this item. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the covering material on this item 
makes a great point of the fact that staff made every effort to get 
additional bidders. 



$50,000 Supplemental Appropriation for Security 

No. 86-0040 Resolution authorizing the Director of 

Airports to request from the Mayor a 
$50,000 supplemental appropriation for 
Pol ice overtime. 



8. Approval of Budget for Professional Services Contract with 
O'Brien-Krei tzberg & Associates, Inc. - Contract Admendment 
No. 7 - $850,000 

No. 86-0041 Resolution approving budget of 

$850,000 for 12-month period 
commencing March 15, 1986, for profes- 
sional services contract between City 
and O'Brien-Krei tzberg & Assoc, Inc. 
to continue to provide scheduling, 
cost control, inspection, and monitor- 
ing services, and to provide personnel 
and equipment resources for the 
Airport's modernization and Replace- 
ment Program. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he did not understand how it costs 
$850,000 when we are at the end of our program. He said he was not 
in favor of it. 

Mr. Yuen responded that right now, we are at the peak of the South 
Terminal reconstruction program with about 1/3 of the project 
finished. Boarding Area 'C is coming up at a cost of $23-mi 1 1 ion. ; 
Delta's interior work will run about $3-mi 1 1 ion . He said that 
Boarding Area 'A' has just been finished and will be replaced by 
Boarding Area 'C. Mr. Yuen said that last year we spent nearly 
$802,000 with Kreitzberg. 

Mr. Yuen explained that the largest amount of that contract, over 
$500,000, goes to about nine inspectors on the construction jobsite 
who report to us. Considering that we have over $1 00-mi 1 1 ion worth 
of construction work underway right now, he felt the amount was a 
very smal 1 percentage. 

Mr. Yuen said that the only increase over last year was about 5X for 
inflation; the budget has not been increased. He said that it will 
drop off sharply with the completion of the South Terminal and the 
tapering off of the Boarding Area 'C contract. Five years ago, when 
the program begam, we had only one project at a time. We budgeted 
$330,000 but only spent $190,000. He explained that was because 
there was some delay in one of our projects and no inspectors were 
hired. The advantage is that these inspectors are hired on an as 
needed basis . He said that with the completion of Rotunda A 
inspectors will be laid off and will not be rehired until after 
Boarding Area 'C is started. 

Mr. Turpen explained that prior to this alternative method of 
managing projects it was handled in house. 



Minutes, February 18, 1986, Page 7 



Mr. Yuen added that the budget was $2-million a year at that time. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that at that time we had 133 in-house 
inspectors; we now have 6-8 in-house people and the O'Brien- 
Kreitzberg contract. He said that inspectors are necessary to ensure 
that the work is done properly. He said that our program speaks for 
itself. Recent programs in other major airports have had some real 
problems. He added that Dallas has recently gone to the same concept. 

Mr. Turpen realized that $850,000 is a large amount compared to what 
we had in the past but it is money well spent. He added that this 
money is not totally committed; it is simply money that is set aside 
to cover what might have to be done. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how much was spent on construction 
last year for the $802,000. 

Mr. Yuen responded that it was roughly $50-million last year. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis did not feel it was unreasonable. 

Mr. Yuen said that this is really minimal inspection. He frequently 
receives complaints from Mr. Bouey's maintenance people that there 
aren't enough inspections and that a lot of things are missed. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the other suit has been finalized. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airport General Counsel, responded that it has 
been filed and is going through due process just like any other piece 
of litigation. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that if Mr. Yuen is convinced that this 
is the minimum we can get by with, he will go along with it. He felt 
that at some point it should start to taper off. 

Mr. Yuen responded that the next contract definitely will be. He 
said that this year and last year were peak years in the construction 
program. He pointed out that this approval is subject to Civil 
Service Commission and Human Rights Commission approval. 



9. Barber Shop/Beauty Salon - Authorization of Pre-Bid Conference 

No. 86-0042 Resolution approving preliminary lease 

specifications and authorizing staff 
to conduct a pre-bid conference for 
the Barber Shop/Beauty Salon Lease. 

Mr. Turpen said that this involves a new lease for the Barber Shop. 
Staff is eliminating the shower area, giving the concession more of a 
beauty shop/barber shop type of image. Staff requests permi.ssion to 
hold a pre-bid conference to solicit reactions from potential bidders. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how much of revenue the showers bring in. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it is $87.00 a week. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he received a letter from the current 
tenant complaining about the showers being eliminated and the amount 
being raised. He said that the minimum acceptable bid will be 
$20,000; the current minimum annual guarantee is $6,000. 



Minutes, February 18, 1986, Page 8 



Mr. Turpen felt that the pre-bid conference will be enlightening in 
terms of the number of people who might be interested in bidding and 
they're reaction to the draft specifications. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the marketplace will decide whether 
or not this type of service is needed. 



10. Bid-Call - Airport Contract No. 1692: 

Office Relocation - Third Floor, North Terminal 

No. 86-0043 Resolution approving the scope, 

budget, and schedule for Contract No. 
1692, and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 
The purpose of this contract is to 
relocate Community Affairs and Land- 
side Operations. Contract time is 60 
calendar days. 

Commissioner Tsourgarkis asked why this was being done. 

Mr. Turpen responded that ever since 1983 when we moved back into the 
terminal facilities we have been very constrained for space. Dennis 
Bouey is heading up a staff team to look at how this might be sorted 
out. He said that this project accomplishes that. It pulls the 
Airport Police back into adequate quarters and makes some other 
relocations he thinks are important. 

Mr. Turpen said that a number of things have been discussed. Among 
them, the option of abandoning the terminal buildings completely and 
moving out to a third facility. He felt that although this is a 
possibility for the future it would not be an appropriate move at 
this time. Staff has looked at some outside-of-the-terminal 
alternatives but from a cost and remodeling standpoint and the fact 
that it splinters staff he doesn't think it is appropriate. Mr. 
Turpen said it has been very beneficial to have staff close together 
and in the terminal facilities because it makes them accessible not 
only to him but to the tenants as well. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what was happening with the 4th floor, 
where the restaurant used to be. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the U.S.O. is located on that floor. Staff 
is also looking at that space as a potential health spa. 



The following item was put over. 

11. Authorization for Pre-bid Conference: 
Electronic Information Services 

Resolution authorizing a pre-bid 
conference for electronic information 
system. 

Mr. Turpen said that this has come before the Commission before. 
Staff would like to conduct a pre-bid conference to determine the 
level of interest and the technology that might be available which 
would enhance and improve the system presently in place. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that Commissioner Bernstein requested 
that no action be taken today and that the item be put over. 



Minutes, February 18, 1986, Page 9 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted: 

12. Type II Modifications for Two South Terminal Complex Construction 
Contracts 

Resolutions approving modification to 
provide additional work for unforeseen 
conditions, increassd scope, deficien- 
cies in the plans and specifications, 
and design changes. 

No. 86-0044 Contract 1410ABCD: South Terminal 

Renovation - Phase I - $23,149.73 

No. 86-0045 Contract 1410EF: South Terminal 

Renovation - Phase II - $207,853.00 



13. Tenant Improvement: 
Airport Hi 1 ton Plot 2 

No. 86-0046 Resolution approving renovation of 

Building 1 Main Floor - 18,000 Sq. Ft. 
Constract No. T-3085, $1,000,000. 



14. Travel /Training for Airports Commission Representatives 

No. 86-0047 Resolution approving Travel/Training 

for Airports Commission 
Representatives. 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing was called to order at 9:33 A.M. and closed at 9:37 A.M. 

15. Hearing Recommending an Increase in Rental Rates for Permitted Cargo 
Space 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if there was anyone present who wished 
to speak for or against the increase. 

No one from the audience wished to address the Commission. 

Commissioner Goosby felt this was a modest increase. He asked if 
anyone complained. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there were complaints three or four months 
ago when staff first brought this up. Since that time staff has been 
working with the airlines to get it sorted out. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if there was a cargo area which included a 
building, auto parking, space for trucks to dock, and aircraft 
parking access. 



Minutes, February 18, 1986, Page 10 



Mr. Turpen responded that there was. They are located at the north 
side of the terminal facilities, along the Frontage Road - just past 
United Airlines, where the old Pan Am building used to be. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if those areas are owned by the airlines. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they were not. He said that the airline's 
leases expired and the Airport took the property over. Those areas 
are being leased back to the airlines for a period of only five years 
because staff is anticipating a future use for that space. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Master Plan is going to look at another 
alternative whereby a central operator would be used as opposed to 
this conglomeration of operators. 

Commissioner Fleishell declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:37 
A.M., there being no further comments. 



K. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 

* * * 

L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:37 A.M. to go into closed session. 




in Caramatti 
Amission Secretary 



Minutes, February 18, 1986, Page 11 



_SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

"y 1 91986 

SAN FRANCISCO 
Public libpapv 



MINUTES 



MARCH 4, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

March 4, 1986 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



CALL TO ORDER: 
ROLL CALL: 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

February 4, 1986 86-0049 



ANNOUNCEMEMT BY SECRETARY: 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Status Report Concerning Supple- 
mental Noise Abatement Regulation 
to Airports Commission Resolution 

No. 78-0131 - Verbal Report 5 

2. Status of Proposed Smarte Carte 

Trial 5-8 

3. Report on Boarding Area 'E' - 

Principal Concession Proposal 8-10 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 12 



POLICY REVIEW: 

4. Review of Policies Adopted by the 
Commission from January, 1970 
to December, 1981 12-13 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

5. Resolution Recommending an 
Increase in Rental Rates for 

Permitted Cargo Space 86-0051 14-15 

6. Award of Contract 1416AB: 
Boarding Area 'C & Aprons - 

$22,501,00. 10-11 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 1 



Authorization for Pre-Bid 

Conference - Electronic 

Information Services 86-0052 15-16 

Award of Two Professional' 
Services Agreements: 

(1) Daniel, Mann, Johnson & 
Mendenhall - Consultant for 
the Preparation of an 
Airport Master Plan - 
$450,000 

(2) Jefferson Associates, Inc., 
Consultant for the Prepara- 
tion of an Environmental 
Impact Report for the 

Master Plan - $100,000 16 

CalTrans Application for 
Expansion of the SFIA Computer- 
ized Ground Transportation 





System 




11 


-12 


10. 


Renewal Options for Rental Car 
Concession Agreements 


86-0053 
86-0054 
86-0055 
86-0056 
86-0057 




17 


11. 


Leather Care - Termination of 
Lease 


86-0058 


17 


-18 


12. 


Airport Improvement Program 
(A. I. P. No. 7) 


86-0059 




18 


13. 


Exhibition of Chinese Qing Dynas 
Porcelain from the Asian Art 
Museum 


ty 

86-0060 




18 


14. 


Amendment of Conflict of Interest 

Code 86-0061 




19 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

15. Retirement Resolution: 

San Francisco Police Chief 

Cornelius Murphy 86-0050 19 

16. Declaration of Emergency - 
Airport Contract No. 1693: 
Emergency Water Main Repair 

Plots 4, 5 and 6, UAL Hangar 86-0062 19 

17. Declaration of Emergency - 
Airport Contract No. 1694: 

Telephone Manhole No. 130107B 86-0063 19 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 2 



18. Tenant Improvement: 

Hilton Elevator Modernization 
Bldgs. 2 & 3, Plot 2 - T-3063 
$115,000 86-0064 19 



19. Statistical Adjustment 1985-86 - 
Joint Use Billings under Lease 
and Use Agreement 86-0065 19 



CORRESPONDENCE: 20 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 20 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

March 4, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



B. ROLL CALL: 
Present: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z.L. Goosby 

Athena Tsougarakis 



CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting recessed at 9:02 AM to go into closed session and reconvened 
at 9:50 AM. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, said that the Airports 
Commission was in closed session to discuss matters of litigation with the 
City Attorney. 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of February 4, 1986 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 86-0049 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
86-0048 regarding the settlement of a 
litigated claim at the closed session 
of February 18, 1986. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 4 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 



Status Report Concerning Supplemental Noise Abatement Regulation to 
Airports Commission Resolution No. 78-0131 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that staff is working, at the 
direction of the Commission, on a follow-up regulation to the 
Airport's Commission's original noise regulation adopted in 1978. 
This regulation will be presented to the Commission in draft form at 
the March 18 Commission meeting as a Director's Report. It will 
subsequently be presented to the Airport Community Roundtable on 
April 2nd after which time the testimony from the Roundtable meeting 
will be made available to assist the Commission with their 
deliberations and their decision concerning this potential noise 
regulation. 



2. Status of Proposed Smarte Carte Trial 

Mr. Turpen said that on January 29th staff proposed a four week test 
on the luggage cart concession be conducted around the time of school 
spring break. He said that as the Commission is aware, we have had 
some difficulty with persons at the Airport either attempting to vend 
the carts outside of the system or taking carts from passengers and 
returning them for the refund. He said that a number of youths have 
been involved in this activity and it has had a negative impact on 
the Airport. For that reason staff and the Commission agreed that a 
test should be conducted, eliminating the 25£ refund. 

Mr. Turpen said that Smarte Carte has objected strenuously to that 
suggestion. Their letter outlining their concerns is attached to the 
Director's Report. Mr. Turpen said that his report contains the 
details of staff's proposal. Staff feels that if Smarte Carte is 
allowed to keep the quarter they can generate significantly increased 
revenues in the trial period and these revenues would offset the cost 
of hiring additional cart collectors to retrieve the carts. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that Mr. Dan Berglund of Smarte Carte 
was present and would like to address the Commission on this matter. 

Commissiner Goosby asked if the projected $12,000.00 in savings for 
eliminating the 25£ refund just reflected the test period. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that was correct. 

Mr. Turpen said that in their letter to the Airports Commission, 
Smarte Carte outlined an 11-point plan as an alternative to staff's 
plan. He said he would like to proceed with staff's plan as outlined 
for a period of 30 days and invite Mr. Berglund to make any ■ 
comments. 

Mr. Berglund said that the proposal as set forth in Ms. Gitten's 
letter was analyzed and it was determined that while it is true that 
eliminating the 250 refund might result in a $12,000 savings, Smarte 
Carte would have a loss in anticipated revenues perhaps exceeding 
$27,000. In addition to that, the anticipated costs of hiring 
employees to maintain the same level of service the Airport currently 
enjoys would total In excess of $50,000.00. Mr. Berglund said that 
would include changing decals and hiring employees for adequate 
coverage of the Airport on a 24-hour basis, something which is 
stipulated in their contract. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 5 



Mr. Berglund said that the proposed elimination of the 25£ refund was 
also looked at from liability and operational aspects. He said that 
there would not be as many carts available in the cart control units 
for passengers to rent so additional carts would have to be 
installed. He explained that this would be in addition to the 
anticipated loss in revenues, so their operating ratios would not 
allow them to proceed with it. They would be in a dead loss 
situation. 

Mr. Berglund said that Smarte Carte understands that the difficulty 
is associated with the International arrivals area, in particular the 
lower level. He said that employees have been hired to work those 
busy hours to ensure that passengers get their refunds, that they 
aren't hasseled, and that if someone is holding a cart they have not 
rented, that it gets returned to the cart control unit. He said that 
in Smarte Carte's response to Ms. Gittens's letter he indicated that 
they would be prepared, with the Airport's permission, to work with 
the Police Department to take further steps to solve the problem. 

Commissoner Bernstein asked if the $50,000 was per month or per year. 

Mr. Berglund responded that the amount was for the test period only. 

Mr. Turpen added that the test was for 30-days. 

Mr. Berglund added that he outlined the number of people Smarte Carte 
felt would be needed to cover certain portions of the Airport, the 
hourly rate that they would be paid, the hours covered, and the 
overhead included, and the cost came to about $43,000.00. The cost 
of changing details to comply with the letter brings the cost up to 
about $47,000; administrative costs brings the total to in excess of 
$50,000. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if it is just the International Terminal 
where over 50% of the problem arises or is it in front of each of the 
terminal s . 

Angela Gittens, Deputy Director of Business and Finance, responded 
that the main problem is at the International Terminal, however, 
based on our Police reports there are problems in the other 
terminals, specifically the North. She said that 50% of the carts 
are rented in the International Terminal but it comprises 75% of this 
problem. 

Mr. Turpen said that the suggestion is to address the International 
Terminal to see if that alleviates the problem. Our experience has 
been that the problem is more prevalent in the International Terminal 
but also exists in the North Terminal as well. The South Terminal 
has not been affected as much, possibly due to its configuration or 
the fact that it has been under construction. Mr. Turpen explained 
that when there's an arrival flight, passengers often will take carts 
out of the customs area and abandon them in the 15,000 square foot 
meeter/greeter lobby on the lower level of the International 
Terminal. Generally, this is because they are met by family and loved 
ones. He feels that Smarte Carte is correct to the extent that they 
indicate that the largest portion of the problem occurs in the 
International Terminal. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the issue of cart retrieval is 
stipulated in Smarte Carte's contract and is their responsibility. 

Mr. Turpen said that is correct. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 6 



Commissioner Goosby said he was sympathetic to Smarte Carte's 
concerns as the Airport is requesting a change to their existing 
contract which Smarte Carte claims could result in a potential loss 
of $50,000 a month. He felt that even if it only cost $20 a month 
the Airport has a moral obligation to pay the cost or give them a 
credit of some kind. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that we are not asking Smarte Carte to 
take on added responsibility. 

Mr. Turpen said that the thrust is that presently there is a reward 
system of 250 for return of carts. Smarte Carte believes that in 
great measure that helps get carts back into the dispensers and 
minimizes their problem of running all over the Airport to retrieve 
carts. If the reward is eliminated, Smarte Carte contends that this 
will cause the numer of loose carts to increase dramatically, 
requiring more carts in the dispensers. He said this will, in 
effect, create the impression of a free cart system at the Airport 
where a person will simply grab a cart that's available, reducing 
revenue flow to Smarte Carte and ultimately to the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen said that the question before the Commission is, does the 
Commission want staff to proceed with their plan as recommended; does 
the Commission want to proceed with the plan that Smarte Carte has 
recommended; or, does the Commission want us to go back to the 
drawing board and try to come up with something else? 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she was inclined to let Smarte 
Carte proceed with their plan and put staff's suggestion in abeyance 
until after the trial period. She added that there should be some 
way of measuring the success of what Smarte Carte wants to do and 
then make a decision based on that as to whether or not it would be 
workable. 

Mr. Turpen said that there are a couple of problem periods that 
typically revolve around school vacations, such as Easter break next 
month, and recommended a test be made during that time. He said that 
the next ideal time to run a test would be June, the beginning of the 
summer vacation. Staff can set up two independent tests and evaluate 
them both if the Commission wishes. 

Commissioner Goosby suggested that the second test could be paid for 
with the anticipated $12,000 savings. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that Smarte Carte expects to loose 
revenue as well because a passenger will grab an abandoned cart 
rather than rent one for a dollar. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission can either put in staff'-s plan or 
Smarte Carte's plan next month. Based on the results of that trial 
program the Commission can accept the plan or go to the alternate 
program in June. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis thought it was fair enough to attempt Smarte 
Carte 1 s program first. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed and suggested doing one terminal. 

Mr. Turpen agreed that Smarte Carte should be allowed to follow their 
plan and if it's not successful he will return to the Commission with 
a very strong recommendation to proceed with staff's plan. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 7 



Commissioner Flei shell was amazed that we are using a program 
developed by representatives of Smarte Carte, individuals who visit 
the Airport once every six months, as opposed to staff's plan. 

Commissioner Tsourgarakis corrected Commissioner Flei shell and said 
that we are not using it, we are testing it. The reason being that 
Smarte Carte expects to loose a lot of revenue and it will cost money 
to do anything else. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that carts are not being sold in the 
International Terminal because the sterile area is inaccessible to 
all but arriving international passengers. Instead, carts are being 
moved to the other two terminals where the quarter can be refunded or 
the carts can be sold directly to passengers for $1.00. He said that 
these individuals have been seen sitting on top of the coin return so 
passengers can't get their quarter back. He said that the problem is 
not going to be solved until there is enforcement. He felt that 
eliminating the 25£ refund will solve only half of the problem. 

Mr. Turpen agreed and said that possibly Smarte Carte's program, 
which is aimed more at enforcement, rather than a disincentive 
program might be the one to try. He said he was open to suggestions 
from the Commission as to which plan they would like implemented. 

Commissioner Goosby preferred to try Commission Tsougarakis' s 
suggestion. He said he could not vote in good conscience for a 
$50,000 a month expenditure He hoped Smarte Carte will be more 
diligent about collecting the carts. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked that the measures be agreed upon 
before the test begins. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked when the Airport will get the carts that 
were promised when the Commission approved this bid. 

Mr. Berglund responded that that issue would be addressed by Mr. 
Pastean and that he was not prepared to speak to the subject. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked Mr. Berglund to check with Mr. Pastean 
and report back to the Commission. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that there was a representation 
made to the Airports Commission when this item was rebid that the 
design of the cart would be modified to an L shape to more easily 
accommodate luggage, especially at a terminus airport like San 
Francisco which tends to have larger volumes of luggage. Smarte 
Carte committed to that L shape design and committed to install it in 
San Francisco. Commissioner Fleishell 's question is that since it 
has been a couple of years, where is it? He asked Mr. Berglund to 
convey the message to Mr. Pastean. 

Mr. Berglund said he would. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that that was part of the legal bid and 
if it isn't timely, we should cancel them. 



Report on Boarding Area 'E' - Principal Concession Proposal 

Mr. Turpen said that this is a report about a concept that staff is 
recommending to the Commission. He said that there are two 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 8 



concession leases on Boarding Area 'E', in the vicinity of the Cookie 
Parlor and Ice Cream Shop, that are going to expire. Staff is 
suggesting that this be pulled together into a principal concession 
concept. He explained that this has proven to be financially 
attractive to the Airport and given us very high quality concessions. 
The information presented to the Commission shows the area being 
assessed, including the movement of the Ice Cream Parlor. He said 
that this is ten months ahead of schedule but it will take time to 
pull it all together and make the appropriate arrangements. The 
report also suggests that existing leases be extended past the 
Christmas holidays so as not to impact those concession revenues 
during that time. 

Commissioner Berstein asked what the theory was in establishing a 
principal concessionaire for these concessions. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the theory is twofold. First of all the 
Commission can, if it agrees to this concept as it has in the past, 
specify what types of concessions and activities it wants in this 
area. Staff is not saying that we are going to have exactly the same 
concessions in the future that we've had in the past. We are saying 
that in a principal concession lease we can specify the types of 
concessions the Commission would want and then bid that lease to a 
single party who would incorporate all the Commission's desires into 
a single package. We have found that our bids have been very good in 
terms of financial return to the Airport on the principal concession. 

Commissioner Bernstein argued that those were with million dollar 
deals, not a newsstand and a personalizing shop. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the North Terminal Hub, which is 
essentially a newsstand and a gift shop, was a million dollars for 
some 3,000 square feet. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that the newsstand and personalizing shop 
might be suited for small business. 

Mr. Turpen said that his recommendation is to have a principal 
concessionaire, however, the decision is up to the Commission. We 
think this is small enough that we can get MBE/WBE participation as a 
prime as opposed to a sub-tenant. However, we will suggest that If 
it is not successful that the successful bidder set aside a certain 
portion of their space for MBE/WBE. 

Commissioner Goosby reminded Commissioner Bernstein that although the 
Hub had only two concessions in it, one of them went to a minority so 
we reached our goal . 

Ms. Gittens corrected Commissioner Goosby and said that both 
concessionaires are minorities. 

Mr. Turpen said that if the Commission thinks we should pursue this 
staff will return with bid specs for a principal conessionaire 1n 
Boarding Area 'E'. If the Commission doesn't think this should be 
pursued, we will return with individual specifications. In any 
event, he recommended that the existing leases be carried over past 
Christmas. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed to extending the leases into January. 

Mr. Turpen said that the other question would be whether or not to 
have a principal concessionaire. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 9 



Commissioners Goosby and Tsougarakis agreed to a principal 
concessionaire. 

Mr. Benny Tan said he was one of the MBE concessionaires in the North 
Terminal that was mentioned. He and his wife operate jewelry 
concessions at the Airport under the sublease program and seafood 
concessions under the SBE set aside program. He thanked the 
Commission for its support and hoped it would continue. 

Mr. Tan said that almost all of the SBE set asides were awarded to 
MBE's/WBE's, making it a very effective program. He requested that 
some of the proposed space be set aside for SBE's. He felt that it 
would not only help the SBE's but would also be one way for the MBE's 
to be independent. Failing that, he requested an MBE joint venture 
participation be made as a requirement rather than an option. He 
felt that if left as an option it will end up being a sublease 
program. 

Mr. Tan thanked the Commission for its time. 

Mr. Turpen said he needs the sense of the Commission on whether or 
not it wants to pursue specs as a principal concessionaire or as 
individual concessionaires. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that on the basis of our experience it 
should be pursued as a principal concessionaire. 

Commissioner Bernstein argued that our track record wasn't based on 
this kind of business. 

Commissioner Goosby responded that we have a small area in the Hub. 

Mr. Turpen said that there is nothing that says we have to pursue 
this type of business arrangement although he strongly suggested we 
have a newsstand as part of it. He once again said that we can 
suggest any type of business. 

Mr. Turpen suggested returning to the Commission with a principal 
concession outline and some suggested concessions. 



H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were called out of order and put over. 

6. Award of Contract 1416AB: 

Boarding Area 'C & Apron - $25,501,000 

Pending Human Rights Commission's 
written confirmation of its 
determination regarding the lowest 
eligible bidder, contract will be 
awarded to Trans/Bay Lathrop, A Joint 
Venture, for the total amount of 
$22,501,000 for Base Bid plus 
Alternate No. 2. All other bids will 
be rejected. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 10 



Mr. Turpen said that for the benefit of the people who are waiting 
for Item #6 - Award of Contract 1 41 6AB, the Airports Commission is 
putting this matter over for two weeks. He explained that the Human 
Rights Commission has not yet concluded its review but anticipated a 
decision by the March 18th Airports Commission meeting. 

Inaudible comments were made from the back of the room. 

Mr. Turpen said that it is the Commission's intention to have that 
finding available in time to make a decision at the next Airport's 
Commission meeting. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Human Rights Commission can be 
contacted directly to find out what their tentative conclusions are. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the Airports Commission will not act until 
HRC has finalized its recommendation. This item will be continued 
for two weeks and is planned for the March 18th meeting. 

Ron Tutor of Tutor-Sal iba asked if he could receive HRC's decision so 
he could respond. He said he was tired of coming to Commission 
meetings with no knowledge of what their decision is or why. 

Commissioner Tsourgarakis responded that that is why we put the item 
over. 

Mr. Garibaldi told Mr. Tutor that he will have access to HRC's 
decision at the same time the Commission receives it. He said that 
hopefully it will be far enough in advance of the meeting to be 
meaningful . 

Commissioner Bernstein said he will see to it that Mr. Tutor receives 
HRC's decision in advance. He said Mr. Tutor was entitled to have 
that information. 

Mr. Garibaldi explained that there are legal issues that have been 
raised by several of the parties with respect to various protests and 
those are being reviewed at the same time that HRC is conducting its 
factual review. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that this postponement is not the doing 
of the Airports Commission. 

Commissioner Goosby added that there is nothing wrong with going to 
the Human Rights Commission and telling them that they ought to 
change their procedure and that the affected parties should be 
notified when the Airport is notified, out of protocol and courtesy. 

The following item was called out of order for discussion. No action 
was required. 

9. CalTrans Application for Expansion of the SFIA Computerized Ground 
Transportation System 

Mr. Turpen explained that due to an administrative error Item #9 was 
not included as a Director's Report and wound up in the AOM section 
of the calendar. He explained that this is simply a Director's 
Report which talks to the fact that certain petroleum violator's 
escrow account funds will be available to the State of California. 
He said that two projects are presently being proposed. One is an 
expansion of our ground transportation system in an updated and 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 11 



improved format; the second is to spend $3. 2-mi 1 1 ion on a remote 
North Bay bus/auto facility in Marin for passengers coming to the 
Airport. He explained that passengers will park at a remote air 
terminal in Marin and be bused to the Airport as part of a mass 
transit alternative. He will provide the Commission with more 
definite information as it is received. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he sent proposed legislation to the 
airports in the area dealing with an attempt by this Commission to obtain 
legislation forbidding the construction of residential units for 
subdivisions within the 65 decibel perimeter of the Airport. He said he 
received the legislation four days after the deadline in Sacramento had 
passed for the introduction of legislation. He said that the legislation 
cannot be introduced this year except as an emergency measure. He said 
that that would require a 2/3rds vote, which he did not feel it would 
receive. He said that another alternative was to find the author of 
another bill who would be willing to add this to his bill. He motioned 
that the Commission authorize staff to do what they can to further that 
legislation in Sacramento. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis seconded Commissioner Fleishell ' s motion. 

Commissioner Fleishell 's motion was unanimously carried. 



POLICY REVIEW: 

4. Review of Policies adopted by the Commission from January, 1970 to 
December, 1981. 

Mr. Turpen made one correction to the February 5, 1980 item regarding 
prevailing wages found on the first page of the attachment. He said 
that this prevailing wage policy predated action by the Board of 
Supervisors. He explained that legislation adopted by the Board is 
the governing policy of the City, therefore this is redundant and 
should not be included. 

Commissioner Goosby argued that this policy has already been adopted 
by the Commission and is part of the policy manual. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the Board acted after the Commission 
adopted this resolution. Since the Commission is subject to the 
policies of the Board of Supervisors this policy is redundant and may 
even conflict with the Board's policy. He felt it best just to have 
one statement of policy on every issue. 

Commissioner Goosby argued that the Board of Supervisors has a policy 
on Small Business Enterprise. 

Mr. Turpen argued that the Commission's policy went further into the 
development of its criteria than did the Board's. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 12 



Commissioner Tsougarakis said she did not have any problem with 
eliminating that policy. 

Commissioner Goosby was not so sure. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis questioned the policy which read: "It is 
the policy of the Airports Commission to establish a policy..." 

Mr. Turpen said he would have to take a look at that policy. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that this established that the 
Commission wanted a policy but that this was not it. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the policy itself was adopted at a later 
date. 

Commissioner Tsourgarakis said that this one should then be removed. 

Commissioner Tsourgarakis said that resolution no. 79-0005 says that 
"it is the policy of the Airports Commission to have a policy for the 
selection of architects..." She asked if this is actually a policy 
or is it a policy to have a policy. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it is a policy. 

Commissioner Tsourgarakis referred to resolution 79-0419 and asked if 
we have a policy, and procedures for construction contract approvals 
manual . 

Mr. Turpen responded that we do. 

Commissioner Tsourgarakis said that she did not think we needed that 
policy, either. 

Mr. Turpen said he will return to the Commission with corrections and 
amendments to this list at the next meeting. The Commission will 
then be asked to affirm the list. 

Commissioner Flei shell asked if there has been an agreement as to 
whether or not the redundant resolution on prevailing wage would be 
el iminated. 

Mr. Turpen responded that a decision has not been made, however, Dr. 
Goosby will have had a chance to look at it by the next meeting. 

Commissioner Fleishell said a Commission has the authority to adopt a 
policy more stringent than that of the Board of Supervisors. 
However, he said that if we intend to keep the policy the language 
should be identical to the Board's. 

Commissioner Goosby said he would feel more comfortable if, instead 
of abandoning resolution, it was reworded to conform to the City's 
pol icy. 

Mr. Turpen said that the wording could be changed to indicate it is 
the policy of the Airport's Commission to conform to City policy 
regarding the payment of prevailing wages. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 13 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (continued): 

The following items were unanimously adopted: 

5. Resolution Recommending an Increase in Rental Rates for Permitted 
Cargo Space 

No. 86-0051 Resolution adopting rental rates for 

cargo handling space rented to 
airlines under permits. 

Mr. Turpen said that this has been before the Commission several 
times. He recommended its adoption. 

Ms. Gittens told the Commission that Jim Chamberlain of Delta 
Airlines sent her a letter commenting on the rental rates and since 
he could not attend the Commission meeting today he asked her to 
distribute it to the Commission. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how staff arrives at a decision to raise 
rates. He asked if it is an arbitrary decision, are Airport expenses 
up, or, do we think we could get more money. 

Ms. Gittens responded that permitted cargo rates are reflected by the 
CPI. 

Commissioner Bernstein assumed that it was then part of the lease and 
an arbitrary raise because of the CPI. 

Ms. Gittens corrected Commissioner Bernstein and said that these 
particular rate increases do not refer to leases, they are 30-day 
permits. She said staff will be forwarding to the Commission 5-year 
leases for these areas which will include a provision for CPI 
adjustments. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that tenants should be told that all 
rates and rentals are subject to CPI adjustment. 

Ms. Gittens said that cargo leases include that provision. 

Commissioner Bernstein argued that 30-days constitutes a lease. 

Ms. Gittens responded that they were not viewed in the same way. 

Commissioner Bernstein did not feel that these increases should be 
arbitrary. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the cargo rate increases have not been 
arbitrary. The increases in March of 1984 were based on an appraisal 
by the Real Estate Department. This increase is based on CPI 
adjustments. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that at least one Public Hearing 
on this matter was held. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that there should be a reason for 
increases and they should not be automatic or arbitrary. 

Ms. Gittens said that the Commission should appreciate the fact that 
the airlines have asked us to establish a goal to have a surplus in 
the Airport support cost center, and cargo rates are revenue to that 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 14 



cost center. In order to accomplish this, cargo rates must be kept 
in accordance with market prices. She said that that could be 
changed. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he did not want to change anything. He 
argued that there should be a reason or the tenants should be 
notified, even for a 30-day lease, that the rate is subject to CPI . 

Mr. Turpen explained that the tenants were notified of the rate 
increase. 

Commissioner Bernstein argued that they were notified of the rate 
increase but they should be told that it is subject to CPI. 

Mr. Turpen agreed. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that these are 30-day permits, not 
leasehold interests. 

Commissioner Goosby said the rates would not be raised until the 
permit expires at the end of the 30 days. He said that at that time 
the operator can cancel his permit if he is unhappy with the increase 
but he agreed with Commissioner Bernstein that the operator should be 
told about CPI adjustments. 

Mr. Turpen said staff was differentiating between leases and 30-day 
permits. We do have the right to cancel the permits and put a new 
permit out at a new rate. Rather than do that we simply say this is 
the new rate. The tenant has the right to cancel a 30-day permit, as 
wel 1 . 

Commissioner Bernstein again made the argument that no matter whether 
it is a lease or a 30-day permit, the operator should be told that 
the rate is subject to CPI adjustments. 

Mr. Turpen said that will be included. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that they refer to CPI in their letters 
so she assumed that they were told about it. 

7. Authorization for Pre-bid Conference - Electronic Information Services 

No. 86-0052 Resolution authorizing a pre-bid 

conference for Electronic Information 
System. 

Mr. Turpen said that this is for the Chronicle Video Tech system and 
requests authorization to hold a pre-bid conference to determine the 
level of interest. 

Commissioner Fleishell hoped that when the specs are developed staff 
will require that the bidders have existing systems. He said that we 
do not need people learning on the job. 

Commissioner Bernstein, referring back to Item #6, said that the 
Commission just received Delta's letter objecting to the increase and 
saying that they were promised a lease covering their occupancy in 
the cargo space area. He said information relating to an item about 
to be discussed by the Commission should not be handed to the 
Commission minutes before the discussion is to take place. He said 
this letter proves that the airlines want to discuss this matter. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 15 



Mr. Turpen wanted to clarify the record and said that staff has been 
discussing cargo rates with Delta Airlines for at least six to eight 
months. The fact that they don't like the increase does not mean 
that it hasn't been discussed. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he did not care whether they like it or 
not. 

Mr. Turpen reiterated that this has been discussed repeatedly with 
the airlines and previous correspondence on this very subject has 
been sent to the Commission. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that any information that concerns the 
meeting should be given to the Commission at least an hour ahead of 
time. 

Ms. Gittens apologized but explained to Commissioner Bernstein that 
Mr. Chamberlain intended to come to the meeting but was unable to 
make it. Since he could not attend the meeting he asked that his 
letter to her be distributed to the Commission. She said that she 
did not know in advance that he would ask her to do this. 



The following item was put over. 

8. Award of Two Professional Services Agreements: 

(1) Daniel, Mann, Johnson & 
Mendenhall - Consultant for 
the Preparation of an Airport 
Master Plan - $450,000. 

(2) Jefferson Associates, Inc. - 
Consultant for the Prepara- 
tion of an Environmental Impact 
Report for the Airport Master 
Plan - $100,000. 

Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall 
will be responsible to produce a 
Master Plan which will reflect the 
highest and best use of the Airport's 
properties, accompanied by forecasts 
and possible alternative solutions to 
the Airport's needs for the next 15 
years. Jefferson will work closely 
with the Airport Master Plan 
consultant in the preparation and 
approval processing of the Environment 
Impact Report. Duties will cover all 
phases of the envirnomental process, 
including the attendance of public 
hearing. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked that this item be put over. 

Mr. Turpen said the Item will be put over and staff will respond to 
the Commission's questions. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 16 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

10. Renewal Options for Rental Car Concession Agreements 

No. 86-0053 Five resolutions authorizing the third 

No. 86-0054 one-year option for each of the 

No. 86-0055 current rental car operators. 

No. 86-0056 

No. 86-0057 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the agencies should be 
differentiated on the basis of performance. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they have traditionally been treated as a 
group. If there is a violation vis a vis their performance, remedies 
are available in the lease. He said that based on their performance, 
there's no reason not to consider them. 



The following item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

11. Leather Care - Termination of Lease 

No. 86-0058 Resolution terminating International 

Terminal Shoeshine Lease (Resolution 
84-0182), Leather Care. 

Mr. Walter Kaplan, representing A Step Up, said that he was just 
informed this morning that Leather Care is being terminated in the 
Central Terminal for non-payment of rent. He complained that he was 
given short notice of this situation. He said he did not know what 
the Airport's plans were or who would take over the operation on an 
interim basis but he did not believe that his client, Bill Jones, who 
submitted two previous bids for shoeshine operations, had been 
notified. He said he is concerned because Leather Care is intricately 
involved in the lease the Airport awarded for the South Terminal. He 
said that he previously stated that fraud has been perpetrated upon 
this Commission by Leather Care in terms of who they are and who the 
lease has been given to. 

Commissioner Fleishell told Mr. Kaplan that the Commission is 
addressing a motion to terminate Leather Care's lease and asked how 
his comments relate to the issue at hand. 

Mr. Kaplan responded that his concern is what is to happen to the 
operation in the Central Terminal and what effect does this then have 
on the lease that is pending for the South Terminal. 

Commissioner Bernstein told Mr. Kaplan that when he uses the -phrase 
"monkey business" and refers to something in and around the Airport 
he should be prepared to prove it. 

Mr. Kaplan said he would be glad to stand on comments he made at the 
last meeting. He said his quarrel is with the staff. He asked if 
this is the appropriate time to ask whether rents are being paid in 
the South Terminal for the current shoeshine operation. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that that inquiry can be made of staff. 
He said that this resolution does not address that issue and it is 
inappropriate at this time to discuss it. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 17 



Commissioner Goosby said that the memo accompanying the resolution 
"....requests Commission approval for a new bid call for the 
International operation. The terms and conditions will be the same 
as the current lease, however, the bid call will specify that no bid 
will be accepted by any party which has been in default on a lease 
within the past 12 months. The International Terminal permit will be 
effective until a new lease is bid and awarded in May. The South 
Terminal permit will be effective until the leased space for the 
South Terminal is available." 

Mr. Kaplan asked who the permittee will be in the Central Terminal 
and how is it to be determined. 

Mr. Turpen responded that this resolution authorizes the Director to 
determine who the permittee will be. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he will endorse that. He said that the 
Director is running the Airport and until we have a problem we're not 
going to ask for outside help. 

Commissioner Flei shell recommended that the language in the 
resolution be changed to read "that no person who is a bidder shall 
have held an officership or a controlling interest in a predecesor 

default. " 

Mr. Turpen said that the resolution will be amended to reflect 
Commissioner Flei she 1 1 ' s recommendation. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he recently learned from staff that the 
people who shine shoes really don't own the business; they pay a fee 
to some politically adept lawyer who won the bid. He did not think 
the Airport should be in the business of letting people win bids to 
create independent contractors. Those people have no protection 
under any of the wage laws. He said he did not know what to do about 
it but felt something should be done. 

Mr. Turpen said he would take a look at it. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

12. Airport Improvement Program (A. I. P. No. 7) 

No. 86-0059 Resolution approving project 

application for A. I. P. Fund of 
$8 . 6-mi 1 1 ion and requesting Board of 
Supervisors to authorize filing of 
Project Application and to accept the 
resulting grant offer. 



13. Exhibition of Chinese Qing Dynasty Porcelain from the Asian Art 
Museum 

No. 86-0060 Requesting Airports Commission 

approval for the financial support of 
an exhibition of Chinese Qing Dynasty 
Porcelain from the Asian Art Museum. 
This requires the reallocation of a 
portion of funds (FY 1987-87) that 
were originally allocated for an 
Aviation Exhibition. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 18 



14. Amendment of Conflict of Interest Code 

No. 86-0061 Update of Designated Positions List in 

the Airports Conflict of Interest Code 



I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

15. Retirement Resolution: 

San Francisco Police Chief Cornelius Murphy 

No. 86-0050 



16. Declaration of Emergency - Airport Contract No. 1693 

Emergency Water Main Repair Plots 4, 5, and 6, UAL Hangar 

No. 86-0062 Proposed resolution declaring the 

existence of an emergency in the 
failure of a water main which serves 
the United Airline Hangar at Plots 4, 
5, and 6; directing the Director of 
Airports to effect the necessary 
repairs and requesting the Controller 
to certify funds needed to effect such 
repairs . 



17. Declaration of Emergency - Airport Contract No. 1694: 
Telephone Manhole No. 130107B 

No. 86-0063 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Commission in 
declaring the emergency and authoriz- 
ing the immediate expansion of Manhole 
No. 130107B on February 13, 1986. 



Tenant Improvement: Hilton Elevator Modernization 
Bldgs. 2 & 3, Plot 2, T-3063 - $115,000 

No. 86-0064 



19. Statistical Adjustment 1986-1986 - Joint Use Billings under Lease and 
Use Agreement 

No. 86-0065 Resolution adjusting 1985-86 joint 

billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline - Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Tower Air, Inc. 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 19 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



* * * 



L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:49 A.M. to go into closed session. 




sandra Crump ler, 

Acting Commission Secretary 



Minutes, March 4, 1986, Page 20 






SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




-NTS DEPT. 

JUN 9 1986 

i FRANCISCO 

P II R L I C ' I R D A O V 



MINUTES 



MARCH 18, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

March 18, 1986 



CALENDAR 

SECTION 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



PAGE 



C. 
D. 
E. 



F. 
G. 



CALL TO ORDER: 



ROLL CALL: 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Report on the Recovery Plan 
for the San Francisco Garter 
Snake Adopted by the Federal 
Fish and Wildlife Service 

Airports Commission Noise 
Regulation 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

POLICY REVIEW: 
Pol icy Manual 



3-5 

5 
5 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Award of Contract 1416AB: 
Boarding Area 'C & Aprons 
$22,501,000. 

Bid Call : 

Airport Contract No. 1667 
Car Wash Facilities - Airport 
Maintenance Base 



86-0069 



5-12 



13 



6. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Resolution Supporting National 
Dispatchers Week 86-0070 



13 



Travel /Training for Airports 

Commission Representatives 86-0071 14 



J. PUBLIC HEARING: 



8. Hearing on the Petition of 
Southern Air Transport on 
Behalf of Burlington Air Freight. 
Inc. for Waiver of Airports 
Commission Regulations and 
Applicable Air Operations 
Bulletins to Permit Operation 
of the Boeing 707-300C Aircraft 
at San Francisco International 
Airport 



CORRESPONDENCE: 14 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 14 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 2 



' 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

March 18, 1986 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



ROLL CALL: 
Present: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z.L. Goosby 

Athena Tsougarakis 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of February 18, 1986 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 



No. 86-0068 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramattl, 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
86-0048 regarding the settlement of a 
litigated claim at the closed session 
of February 18, 1986. 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 



Report on the Recovery Plan for the San Francisco Garter Snake 
Adopted by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, explained that this is the final 
report from the Fish and Wildlife Service on their study of the San 
Francisco Garter Snake. He reminded the Commission that as a 
condition of granting a permit for the construction of the new 
Airport interchange, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service required that 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 3 



a study be made of the San Franciso Garter Snake on the West of 
Bayshore property. That study ran for about 2-1/2 years and involved 
placing the fence around 188 acres of Airport land to protect the 
habitat. He said that the report calls for some guidelines that the 
Agency considers are appropriate in order to protect the habitat of 
the San Francisco Garter Snake. Mr. Turpen said that although these 
points are not binding, U.S. Fish and Wildlife requests that we 
incorporate them into any future plans we might have for the West of 
Bayshore property in order to protect the habitat of the Garter 
Snake. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if that meant that the Airport will be 
prohibited from developing that area. 

Mr. Turpen responded that in effect that is correct. The habitat of 
the Garter Snake must be considered in any development plans. He 
said that there is sufficient Federal involvement in the West of 
Bayshore property that it would be appropriate for us to come to some 
agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife on any plans for development. 
He said that would include protecting against the loss of the habitat 
for the Garter Snake protecting against illegal entry into that site. 
He said they are talking about taking all dredged soil off site and 
depositing it elsewhere so that there will be no filling on the site 
which might destroy the habitat. 

Commissioner Fleishell reminded the Commission that we have an 
agreement with the airlines which prohibits us from spending money on 
West of Bayshore. 

Mr. Turpen said that except for maintenance, that was correct. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that we just put up a fence around that 
area. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the fence was actually put up by CalTrans. 
He said that all costs were paid by the State; the Airport incurred 
no costs. He estimated $100,000 for the fence and the study. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that the key reason they agreed to 
this study was that if we decide to move forward with any plans for 
the West of Bayshore a necessary prerequisite to those plans would be 
a study of the San Francisco Garter Snake. We now have the study in 
hand and as we develop the property we are obligated to consider the 
mitigation alternatives suggested by U.S. Fish and Wildlife. He said 
that if we disagree with them we will have to come to some agreement 
as to what mitigation measures would be appropri- ate. Mr. Turpen 
said these measures are not binding but certainly set the ground 
rules and let us know in advance what their concerns are so that we 
might factor them in, if possible. He said it was his understanding 
that if we object to the mitigation alternatives as outlined- we can 
appeal . 

Commissioner Goosby asked how long we have to appeal. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he believed we had six months. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that this was one more reason to move ahead 
with the Master Plan resolution, once the wording is changed, so we 
can try to incorporate this thinking into the deliberations. He 
added that the Master Plan does not reflect any expansion of the 
Airport. 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 4 



Mr. Turpen said that because of the configuration of the West of 
Bayshore and certain drainage flow canals that exist there he felt 
there might be significant difficulty in preserving a habitat. He 
said that the question is whether the habitat that we preserve would 
be the one that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife envisioned. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis suggested that this item be put over until 
the Master Plan is available for the Commission to review. 

Mr. Turpen said he will continue to keep the Commission advised but 
this will be the final report staff will file on the study of the San 
Francisco Garter Snakes. 



The following item was put over. 

2. Airports Commission Noise Regulation. 

Mr. Turpen asked that this item be put over. He explained that at 
the present time staff has not completed drafting the noise 
regulation. He said it will probably come before the Commission at 
the first meeting in April. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners. 

* * * 

G. POLICY REVIEW: 

3. Pol icy Manual 

Mr. Turpen said that these policies have already been approved and 
the Commission is confirming that these, in fact, remain the policies 
for the Airport. This will conclude development of the policy 
manual. The Commission Secretary has indicated that the manual will 
be available within 60 days and copies will be sent to the Commission 



H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was unanimously adopted as amended to reject all bids 
and to rebid the contract. 

4. Award of Contract 1416AB: 
Boarding Area 'C & Aprons 
$22,501,000 

No. 86-0069 The Commission will consider bids for 

Contract 1416AB and will decide 
whether to award said contract or to 
reject all bids. 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 5 



Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
said that this is a follow-up of previous Commission meetings which 
postponed a decision on the award of this contract. He said that the 
Human Rights Commission has made the following determinations: that 
the lowest numerical bidder, Tutor-Sal iba, does not comply with the 
affirmative action program; that Williams and Burrows does not 
qualify for the LBE preference; and that U.N. Steel, a listed 
subcontractor for the second low bidder, Trans Bay/Lathrop, is not a 
qualified MBE. Mr. Yuen said that Tutor-Sal iba has asked to substi- 
tute that subcontractor with one that has been verified as an MBE. 
He recommended, subject to the Human Rights Commission's approval, 
that the contract be awarded to Trans Bay/Lathrop. 

Mr. Tutor, Tutor-Sal iba, viewed HRC's recommendation to award to 
Trans Bay/Lathrop as one of the real public abuses of the low bid 
procedures inherent in the system. He said that he attended a 
meeting with the Human Rights Commission at which he discussed at 
great length his potential MBE partner, the percentage of MBE work, to 
be done by his firm, and the so-called responsiveness or non-respon- 
siveness of his bid proposal. He said that Mr. George Wong of the 
City Attorney's Office stated in that meeting that non-responsiveness 
on the WBE issue was not an issue but rather a subjective matter for 
the Human Rights Commission to determine whether or not they had the 
appropriate number of MBE's and WBE's. He said that at that meeting 
with HRC they discussed whether Universal Insulation was a qualified 
minority contractor. Mr. Turtor said that there was no question that 
Mr. Jenkins was a minority contractor. He said that his company 
never received a finding from HRC; they were never told that any of 
their minority contractors, let alone partners were, in fact, non- 
responsive, not qualified or unable to be utilized toward the goals. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what type of contractor he was. 

Mr. Tutor responded that Laine Jenkins is an insulation contractor. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if, during that meeting, it was ever raised 
by HRC as being an important factor. 

Mr. Tutor said no. He said they were never given a verbal or a 
written finding until it was virtually days before this meeting. 
They were never given an opportunity to substitute and felt that they 
are somehow being manuevered out of the contract. He said that the 
HRC, by their own admission in a letter, has worked at great lengths 
with Lathrop to substitute a minority contractor, to allow the use of 
air sheet metal and give them a waiver when they are, in fact, not a 
small business enterprise and disadvantaged. The report indicates 
that the Human Rights Commission struggled for many weeks to work 
with the second bidder to find a qualified MBE. He said that even 
though it falls short, by working diligently together they are now 
closer to the goals. Mr. Tutor wanted to know what happened to 
Tutor-Sal iba, the low bidder. He said that they were told nothing. 
He said that Tutor-Saliba is the legitimate low bidder and entitled 
to be awarded the contract but if that isn't going to happen then he 
strongly urged the Commission to reject all bids. He said that this 
is not the manner in which public works contracts should be awarded. 

Mr. Turpen asked Grant Mickins of the Human Rights Commission to 
address the Commission. 

Mr. Mickins said he would like to respond to at least two of Mr. 
Tutor's statements. Basically, the Human Rights Commission's roll is 
to evaluate all bids for all contracts awarded to all agencies. He 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 6 



explained to the Commission that upon the initial review of bids the 
term "apparent low bidder" is used because at that point there is no 
way of knowing whether there has been any substance of compliance 
with the MBE/WBE qualifications. He said that it is correct that 
Tutor-Sal iba was the apparent low bidder until HRC began to examine 
the face of the documents submitted. He said there were two or three 
major areas which could not be overcome with respect to the bid and 
the MBE/WBE participation of Tutor-Sal iba. He explained that one of 
the basic areas was that on the affidavit, which is part of the bid 
submission, Tutor-Saliba listed zero for WBE participation. He said 
that HRC's interpretation of that must be taken at face value. A 
bidder cannot be allowed to add participation when they have stated 
that they do not intend to make such a contribution. Mr. Mickins 
said that that was one of the basic areas of their bid that was not 
curable. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the object here was to get MBE and 
WBE particpation. He asked why someone on the HRC staff did not call 
Mr. Tutor when the zero was discovered. 

Mr. Mickins responded that the interpretation of that zero was the 
subject of a discussion between HRC's staff, Mr. Tutor's representa- 
tives and Airport attornies. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he was referring to the time when 
the document was opened and the zero was seen. He said that staff, 
knowing that this was a seasoned bidder, should have wondered whether 
or not it was a typo. He said that no one did anything like that 
until after Tutor-Saliba had been rejected. 

Mr. Mickins said that is not correct. He said that considerable 
staff work and review was done to determine whether or not it was an 

inadvertent error. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the number was supposed to be zero. 

Mr. Mickins responded that there is no indication that there was any 
participation on the part of the bidder. He understood that Mr. 
Tutor's representatives subsequently indicated that they intended to 
make that up through some lower tier performance. Mr. Mickins 
explained that the rules allowed a zero but in the event that a zero 
is listed the rules also state that the bidder must offer compelling 
documentation as to why that goal cannot be met. He said that merely 
to list zero and have no explanation as to why it was listed presents 
a real problem to HRC in its approach. 

Mr. Mickins said that the MBE participant, Universal Insulation, is a 
bonafide specialty contractor and Human Rights Commission has no 
quarrel with their status. However the rules clearly indicate that 
in the case of an MBE participant and an itemized joint venture, we 
require each joint venturee to identify his participation. 

Mr. Mickins said that this was purported to be a lump sum joint 
venture and HRC requires a costing out. He said it is not sufficient 
for a bidder merely to state, as Mr. Tutor stated, that he intends to 
do a lump sum joint venture and work as a team. He said he was 
present at a meeting when Mr. Tutor was told of the need to cost this 
out. At no point did Mr. Tutor volunteer or indicate the role that 
this joint venture MBE was to play with respect to this bid. Mr. 
Mickins said that is a very important element of MBE performance. He 
said that the rules and regulations of the Commission very clearly 
indicate that the joint venture MBE must perform in the area that is 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 7 



normally his performance role. He explained that in each case the 
bidder must indicate who the personnel contri- buting to this project 
will be, the equipment to be used, and other resources that are 
available. He said that even though this is a lump sum joint 
venture, HRC recognizes the nature of each. He said this was not 
done. 

Lastly, Mr. Mickins explained that the specialty contractor, 
Universal Insulation, was going to operate as construction 
management, an area they were not licensed for, when they were 
clearly qualified to perform concrete and insulation work. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that HRC had a number of meetings with 
Trans Bay/Lathrop and asked how many meetings were held with Tutor. 

Mr. Mickins responded that he was present at one meeting. The staff 
was in contact with Mr. Tutor and he was in contact with his 
representatives by telephone. He said that that was usually the 
manner of contact his staff had with the Trans Bay/Lathrop group. 

Commi ssioner Bernstein asked if the number remained zero. 

Mr. Mickins said that it did and the law does not allow adding 
participation to the face of the document. He said that once it 
became obvious that the apparent low bidder could not be qualified, 
his staff evaluated the performance of the next apparent low bidder. 
Mr. Mickins said that his staff did a tremendous amount of review and 
spent a lot of time with Counsel to ensure that they were within 
their own guidelines as well as within the perameters of the State 
contracting laws. He urged the Commission to support his recommend- 
ation. 

Mr. Robert Ward, representing Laine Jenkins, the minority participant 
in this joint venture, assured the Commission that he was present at 
all stages of these proceedings and the Human Rights Commission staff 
met only one time with the Tutor staff. He said the Tutor staff has 
not been given any assistance to this joint venture. He felt that 
this was not a fair and impartial decision making process by HRC. 
Mr. Ward said that even though the Human Rights Commission admits 
that Laine Jenkins is a bonafide MBE they claim he is not qualified 
for this job. He said that if the Human Rights Commission felt this 
job was too big for Laine Jenkins they are being very unfair. Mr. 
Ward said that Mr. Jenkins is a qualified minority contractor with 
over 20 years of construction background in this area. He has worked 
all the major city jobs - the post office, the South Terminal, and is 
currently working at the Airport. He said Laine Jenkins has no prime 
experience however most Black contractors in this area don't have 
prime experience. The object of these types of joint ventures is to 
allow a minority to gain prime-level experience. He said that no 
effort was made by the Human Rights Commission to meet with Tutor and 
Laine Jenkins to arrange for costing out of this particular project; 
no assistance whatsoever was given to them. He said that this type 
of joint venture is a means by which minority contractors can gain 
prime contracting experience and should be supported and assisted by 
the Human Rights Commission. Mr. Ward asked that the Commission 
either continue the matter so that further evaluation can be given to 
Laine Jenkin's qualifications, or, to reject all bids, rebid the 
contract and have a fair and impartial decision making process. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if there has been any effort by the Human 
Rights Commission to meet with Tutor-Sal iba and Universal Insulation 
to work out any of the deficiencies since the last Commission meeting. 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 8 



Mr. Ward responded no. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked Mr. Wong why the attempt was made to 
try to salvage Trans-Bay and not Tutor-Sal iba. 

Mr. George Wong, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the issue 
before this Commission is two-fold: First, whether there was 
compliance with the WBE goals of the program, and second, has the 
Human Rights Commission determined whether or not Tutor-Sal iba' s 
joint venture was bonafide and the appropriate percentage of MBE 
participation credited. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said the Commission needs to understand the 
process. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it was true that there were several 
meetings with Lathrop and only one with Tutor. 

Mr. Wong responded that he was present at one meeting with Tutor- 
Sal iba and one meeting with Lathrop. 

Commissioner Bernstein argued that there were other meetings. 

Mr. Wong said he could not answer that question. He was present at 
only one meeting with each party. 

Mr. Wong explained that when a bidder submits a bid, he submits his 
bid proposal and the HRC preform, which is an affidavit on which a 
bidder lists all his minority subcontrators and suppliers, as well as 
its WBE subcontractors and suppliers. He said that for this contract 
the goal was 107. for MBE and 27. for WBE. The form and the 
affirmative action plan provides that if a bidder fails to make the 
commitment, does not reach the 107. or 27. goals specified, then 
supporting documentation should be included with the bid indicating 
why the goals could not be met and the good faith efforts taken by 
the bidder. Mr. Wong said that when the bid opening took place and 
Tutor-Sal iba' s bid was reviewed it was seen that a zero was listed, 
indicating there was no participation for WBE. Mr. Wong said that he 
talked to Tutor-Sal iba' s attorneys and they told him they would give 
some points and authorities whereby the Human Rights Commission could 
waive the WBE requirement. Mr. Wong said that the law clearly states 
that if there is no commitment to the goals and if there is no 
supporting documentation indicating why the goals could not be met, 
that bid is non-responsive. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked why it was permissible to make the 
effort to help make the Trans-Bay bid work. 

Mr. Wong responded that Trans-Bay/Lathrop had the commitment; the 
stated MBE goal was more than 107. and the WBE goal was more than 2%. 
He explained that the commitment was there and the Human Rights 
Commission had received the preform on Lathrop' s MBE participation. 
He believed there was one big change having to do with a steel 
subcontractor for somewhere in excess of $400,000. He said that the 
steel subcontractor was not an MBE so an effort was made for them to 
substitute that subcontractor with a bonafide MBE subcontractor. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Susan Mart if she wished to address 
the Commission. 

Ms. Mart, representing Trans Bay/Lathrop, said that they appreciated 
the cooperation they received from the Human Rights Commission. She 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 9 



felt that the question of how many meetings the Human Rights 
Commission had with Lathrop and with Tutor-Sal iba missed the point. 
She explained that Tutor-Saliba admitted that they deliberately 
filled in a zero commitment for the WBE requirement and deliberately 
failed to include the required backup in the hopes they could later 
make up that commitment with lower tier subcontractors. She said 
that is in violation of the specifications. HRCAAP, Section 25, says 
that failure to fill those specifications out is a material breach 
and a material breach cannot be waived by HRC. Ms. Mart said that it 
is a further a violation of the spirit of the competitive bidding 
act. She explained that to fill in zero means you don't have to use 
higher cost MBE's or WBE's; you can take whatever low bid you can 
find and hope to make it up later. She felt that was a violation of 
the spirit of what the Human Rights Commission and the Airports 
Commission are looking for. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Jenkins if he wished to address the 
Commi ssion . 

Mr. Jenkins said he is the owner of Universal Insulation. He said 
that a cost out was never mentioned in the meeting with HRC staff. 
He said that during that meeting they were asked various questions, 
which were answered, and at that time everything was laid out. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Jenkins if, at that time, he was asked 
whether or not information could be provided as to why a qualified 
woman sub-contractor could not be found. 

Mr. Jenkins responded that that was never discussed. He said that 
Mr. Wong disqualified him at that meeting. He said he has worked 
with Tutor-Saliba for five years on various projects throughout the 
City and has had access to the office and worked with the 
engineers. He said that he did about 60 percent of East Bay Mudd 
under Tutor's direction. He said he is qualified and capable of 
managing and running the job, with some assistance, at the Airport. 
He assured the Commission that some of the things mentioned by Mr. 
Mickins and Mr. Wong today were not true and that they only had one 
meeting. 

Mr. Tutor, responding to some of the comments made earlier, said that 
concerning the WBE role, they filed a brief with the Human Rights 
Commission at the time of their meeting. Mr. Wong, at that time, 
seemed to think it was satisfactory. The brief explained that they 
filed the zero because there is a statement in the bid form that says 
that whoever signs, signs under the penalty of perjury. He said that 
they explained in that meeting, and have subsequently tendered forth 
WBE's in excess of 2%, that those WBE's are not direct contracts with 
Tutor-Saliba and they cannot swear under penalty of perjury. They 
are suppliers and truckers for subcontractors and other suppliers. 
He said that HRC has all that information and the rationale behind 
it. Mr. Tutor also denied ever having been asked about the cost 
information. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if there would be an adverse impact if 
all bids were rejected. He said that the last seven years since he 
has been with this Commission, 98% of all protests and contracts that 
we have put out, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, have been 
exactly like this. . .bidders do not understand the forms. He did not 
understand how bids could be so far apart. Realizing that, he said 
that this Commission changed its own bidding procedure to a 
bifurcated procedure, where the non-confidential bidding information 
would be in one envelope and opened in advance. In the event a 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 10 



bidder forgot something, that error could be corrected without 
adversely impacting the bid. The object of competitive bidding is to 
attract more bidders yet he felt that the Commission always sees the 
same names. He felt we were driving away other potential bidders and 
said that unless there is a major economic impact to the Airport he 
was inclined to reject all bids. 

Commissioner Goosby said that because of the importance of HRC's 
role, the MBE ordinance the City is enforcing and the attitude that 
the business community and the construction community have towards 
that ordinance, it is important to the Commission that the imple- 
mentation is above any reproach or any criticism. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that before the bids are thrown out 
they should think about the fact that this is a $22-mi 1 1 ion 
contract. She said that it is difficult for HRC to review and be 
sure that it's findings are correct and at the same time try to make 
sure it isn't all negative so that everybody gets turned down. At 
the same time it is difficult for the contractors. She said it is 
not an easy task and we can not expect perfection in the process. 
Commissioner Tsougarakis said that it is the Commission's 
responsibility to determine whether or not there is so much 
imperfection that it warrants throwing out all of the bids, or, is 
this good enough to go ahead with because we will lose five and a 
half months if we must go through the entire process again. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed with Commissioner Tsougarakis ' s final 
point. He also felt that the same effort should have been made for 
the lowest bidder that was given to the second lowest bidder. He 
also questioned why it would take from 4-5 months to rebid this 
contract when the same specs will be used and the same contractors 
will rebid. He felt that the time could be shortened and that the 
HRC, the Airports Commission, this Ordinance and the City would 
benefit if this bid goes out again with a clean slate. He felt that 
no one could then claim that we were playing favorites, giving some 
party preferential treatment, or that the ordinance is not being 
addressed honestly because we don't adequately explain the forms. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if this was the contract where a bid was 
submitted one minute late. 

Mr. Yuen explained that one bidder claimed that another bidder 
submitted his bid one minute late but that staff has determined that 
it was a timely submission. 

Mr. Yuen told Commissioner Goosby that in order to rebid this 
contract staff must first prepare documents and combine all the 
changes and explanations. 

Commissioner Goosby argued that the specifications are already done. 

Mr. Yuen responded that was true, however, there are a lot of 
addendums to the specifications due to all the questions that were 
raised. He said that all those answers must be incorporated into the 
original documents. Furthermore, the length of time cannot be 
shortened because in so doing we will give those five bidders an 
advantage and we will eliminate all other competition. He argued 
that a potential new bidder could offer the argument that he did not 
bid before becuase he was too busy. 

Commissioner F 1 e i she 1 1 asked Mr. Yuen how he defined "short term". 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 11 



Mr. Yuen responded one or two weeks. 

Commissioner Fl ei she 1 1 told Mr. Yuen he could call the Associated 
General Contractors and the information that comes out of this 
meeting today will be common gossip by lunchtime in the construction 
industry. 

Mr. Yuen argued that assuming this contract could be put out in three 
weeks, all MBE's and WBE's would still have to be certified. He said 
that it is the same process we are now going through. . .which took 
exactly two months this time. The contract must then be calendared, 
bringing the total time to about 4 or 5 months. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission has his recommendation. The 
Commission has the right to reject all bids and direct staff to rebid 
the project. He said it is not in the Airport's best interest to 
procrastinate in rebidding the project nor to procrastinate in its 
completion since there are several tenants who are waiting for the 
space that Boarding Area 'C will give them. He said that the 
Commission can, if it wishes, reject all bids and staff will rebid it 
and get it in place as quickly as possible. 

The Commission voted unanimously to reject the Director's 
recommendation. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that staff can send out a pre-call-for 
bid-letter explaining that the Airport will call for bids on a 
particular date. 

Mr. Yuen said that in rejecting the bid the Commission needs to 
authorize staff to rebid this project. The bid will then have to be 
readvertized. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Commission should hold a special 
meeting, if need be, to expedite this. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis added that she would be here to say "I told 
you so" as she was certain that the Commission will have to go 
through this all over again. 

Commissioner Goosby disagreed. 

Commissioner Fl ei she 1 1 added that just as the Commission realized 
that our forms were crystal clear to us, they were not clear to the 
public. He asked that the City Attorney appoint a task force, 
consisting of Airport and HRC staff, to attempt to make these forms 
more understandable. He said he was certain Mr. Mickins would 
appreciate this as it would substantially reduce the work load for 
his department. He asked Mr. Mickins to contact him. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the individuals who bid on this contract 
repeatedly bid on projects at this Airport, they know the system as 
well as we do and have done a lot of work at the Airport. He said 
that all of a sudden there is this impression that we were trapped or 
duped. He said he wanted to make it abundantly clear that the people 
involved in this process have been repeatedly involved in the past. 
Mr. Turpen said he has no problem with rebidding this contract and 
will move expeditiously on it but reiterated that these were not 
brand new bidders who had never been involved with City business 
before. 

Commissioner Fleishell argued that this contract was treated 
completely differently than prior contracts. 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 12 



The following item was put over. 

5. Bid-Call: Airport Contract No. 1667 
Car Wash Faci 1 ities 
Airport Maintenance Base 

Resolution approving the scope, 
budget, and schedule for Airport 
Contract No. 1667, and authorizing the 
Director of Airports to call for bids 
when ready. The purpose of this 
contract is to install an automatic, 
drive-through vehicle wash facilities 
at Airport Maintenance Base. Contract 
time is 100 calendar days. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how many vehicles we have at the 
Airport. 

Mr. Leon Bitners, Assistant Deputy Director, Facilities, Operations 
and Maintenance, responded that there are 152 vehicles that would fit 
into thi s car wash. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how many vehicles would have to go 
through a car wash in order to spend $81,700.00. 

Mr. Bitners told the Commission that staff estimates that some 
vehicles will require more frequent washings since they are driven on 
the field and get quite dirty. He said that staff estimates on an 
average of once every two months or about 1,000 washings per year. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that the interest on $81,000.00 would be 
about $8,000 and would therefore end up costing the Airport about 

$8.00 per car to wash. 

Mr. Turpen asked the Commission if it was suggesting that the cars be 
driven off the Airport by employees four times a day for a year to 
get the cars washed in San Bruno. He argued that staff time is part 
of what we are talking about. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked who would run this unit. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it would be run by our auto maintenance 
people; there would be no additional personnel. 

Mr. Turpen said that if the Commission wishes we will continue to 
operate in the same fashion but he recommended approval of the car 
wash. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked that the item be put over to the next 

meeting. 



I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

6. Resolution Supporting National Dispatchers Week 

No. 86-0070 Request approval be granted by 

proclamation supporting "National 
Dispatchers Week" April 6-12, 1986. 

Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 13 



7. Travel Training for Airports Commission Representatives 
No. 86-0071 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing was called to order at 10:00 A.M. and adjourned at 
11:00 A.M. A certified court reporter's transcript of this item is 
attached. 

8. Hearing on the Petition of Southern Air Transport on Behalf of 
Burlington Air Freight, Inc. for Waiver of Airports Commission 
Regulations and Applicable Air Operations Bulletins to Permit 
Operation of the Boeing 707-300C Aircraft at San Francisco 
International Airport 



K. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 

* * * 

L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 11:00 A.M. to go into closed session. 



r 

Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, March 18, 1986, Page 14 



COMMENTS OF 

HUGH J. PARRY 

ON THE PROPOSED OPERATION OF 0707 TYPE AIRCRAFT 

AT 
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 



My name is Hugh J. Parry. I am employed by The Parry Com- 
pany, of Half Moon Bay, California and Freeland, Washington. The 
firm conducted the acoustical noise analyses portions of the 1979 
ANCLUC study that was the basis of the present FAA approved noise 
mitigation plan in effect at the Airport. The firm also has pre- 
pared the semi-annual CNEL noise contours for the Airport each 
year since 1980. 



I have been continuously employed as an aviation acoustical 
scientist since receiving the Bachelor of Science degree from the 
American Institute of Technology in 1952. I am a Certified Envi- 
ronmental Professional, and a Member of numerous professional 
societies including the Institute of Noise Control Engineers and 
the Acoustical Society of America. I have been requested by the 
law firm of Alexander, Millner & McGee to comment on the noise 
that would be created by operations of the 0707 type aircraft at 
San Francisco International Airport. 



My testimony will cover the following aspects of the subject 

1) The noises produced by aircraft jet engines 

2) FAA noise certification measurement locations 

3) Noise control for aircraft jet engines 

4) Noise exposed areas around the Airport 

5) Comparisons with other large turbojet aircraft 

6) The estimated effect of 0707 aircraft on the noise 
exposed areas around the Airport 

1) Turbojet Engine Noise Sources 

A turbojet engine has four major sources of noise: 

1. The exhaust jet plume behind the engine. 

2. The rotating compressor blades inside the forward 
portion of the engine nacelle housing. 

3. The rotating turbine inside the rear portion of the 
engine nacelle housing. 



4. The fuel combustion process that takes place inside 
a set of chambers located about midway between the 
two sets of blades of the compressor and turbine. 

By far, the two most important of these sources are the 

exhaust and the compressor. 



The noise produced by the exhaust is proportional to the 
eighth power of the velocity of the jet exhaust that comes out 
the back of the engine. This is an important point to remember 
because it is the reason why new technology engines used on newer 
aircraft are so much quieter - they are much larger in diameter 
and can exhaust much more air at relatively low velocities. 



Since the noise of the exhaust is produced outside of the engine 
there is no way to attenuate, or reduce, it with sound absorbing 
materials inside the engine. This noise is also proportional to 
about the sixth power of the engine thrust, or power. This 
means, for example, that the noise produced by the jet exhaust 
increases, or decreases, by 6 decibels for a 25 percent change in 
engine thrust. This is an important point to remember in under- 
standing how the so-called "engine cutback" procedure reduces 
noise. 

The noise produced by the rotating compressor blades is very 
much like the noise produced by an ordinary propeller. It con- 
sists of a series of pure tones at relatively high frequencies 
(like the high notes of a musical instrument) - but not so melo- 

d i n ■•>■ . I h c k i' L -»n*" «s n r <> , n t '-our •» , nrodiired within ' h o (sn»in» 
housing and propagate forward through the engine inlet and aft 
through the fan exhaust duct. 

2) FAA Noise Certification Measurement Locations 



When a turbojet aircraft is tested to determine if it meets 
the FAA noise certification regulation, it's noise is measured at 
three locations. These are known as the Takeoff, Approach and 
Sideline locations. The Takeoff location is about 3 . 5 miles 
from the start of the runway. The Approach location is about 1_ 
mile from touchdown. The Sideline location is 0.35 nautical 



miles from the runway centerline for four-engine aircraft and 
0.25 nautical miles for two- and three-engine aircraft. So, there 
are a minimum of three noise level measurements in the certifica- 
tion test. It is important to notice here that, since maximum 
thrust must be used until the aircraft is about 1000 feet above 
the ground, the sideline noise is not affected by thrust cutback. 

3) Jet Exhaust Noise Control For Turbojet Engines 
1. Exhaust Noise Control 

From the discussion above we know that the noise produced 
by the jet exhaust can only be controlled by controlling 
the exhaust velocity of the jet. In new technology 
engines this is done by using a very large diameter com- 
pressor and exhausting more air at lower velocities. In 
normal operation thrust is reduced when landing an air- 
craft and this is why the jet exhaust noise is so much 
lower at that time. 



The only way to reduce noise in the older technology 
engines, such as used on the 0707, is to reduce thrust. 
This is the type of technique used in certifying the Q707 
under the FAA ' s noise regulation. 



2. Compressor Noise Control 

The noises produced by the compressor are controlled on 
all turbojet aircraft engines by sound absorbing materi- 
als (SAM) installed along the various walls of the com- 
pressor inlet and outlet ducts. SAM in the inlet duct 
reduces the noise coming out the front of the engine. 
SAM in the outlet ducts reduces the noise that comes from 
the outlet duct along the rear side of the engine. 

3. Q707 Noise Control 

The Q707 uses both SAM and thrust cutback for noise con- 
trol, plus reduced flap extension during the landing 
approach which reduces the amount of engine thrust during 
that phase of flight. 



For the Q707 it can be deduced that the effectiveness of 
the SAM during takeoff conditions is about 2 decibels 
because this is the amount of reduction achieved at the 
sideline location where no thrust reduction is used. 
This and other Q707 values are from a technical paper 
prepared by the engineering vice president of the engine 
noise control system developer. Therefor, during the 



takeoff ground roll of the aircraft it will be 2 decibels 
below the noise level produced by an unmodified B707 air- 
craft. A 10 decibel reduction is needed to be perceived 
as being half the noise. 

According to that same paper, during approach to landing 
where the compressor noise tends to dominate the reduc- 
tion achieved is much greater - 6.3 decibels. 
Also, the takeoff noise levels are reduced by a reported 
9.8 decibels using thrust cutback. Since 2.1 decibels 
can be accounted for from the sideline data as being due 
to the SAM, 7.7 decibels must result from the cutback. 
This will result in actual practice only if cutback is 
used. Otherwise, the reduction relative to an unmodified 
707 aircraft is only 2.1 decibels. 



From the earlier description of the relationship between 
engine thrust and exhaust noise levels it can be shown 
that the thrust reduction to achieve 7.7 decibels less 
noise must be about 35 percent. This means that the air- 
craft is using only about 65 percent of normal takeoff 
thrust during this critical time. In effect, this 65 
percent is less than the thrust of three of the four 
engines. If cutback is not used the Takeoff noise level 
at the 3.4 mile certification point will be 115.3 EPNDB 
according to that same technical paper. 



4) Noise Exposed Areas Around The Airport 

Noise exposure in the state of California is measured in 
terms of the cumulative metric known as CNEL. The Parry Company 
prepares contours of constant CNEL for the Airport on a semi- 
annual basis. CNEL is a measure of the total annual noise based 
on a 24-hour interval with 5 and 10 dB penalties for evening and 
nighttime noises. 

There are four residential areas around the Airport that are 
exposed to CNEL values that exceed the State criterion level of 
65 CNEL. 

1. Foster City 

Foster City is mainly exposed to noises from aircraft on 
approach to the Airport. Engine thrust levels are typi- 
cally at 35 to 55 percent of Takeoff thrust so that jet 
noise is quite low. Compressor noises tend to dominate 
this phase of flight. 



2. Millbrae 

This area is occasionally exposed to flyover noises from 
aircraft departing on Runway 19 to the south during 
unusual weather conditions. Most usually the area is 



COMMENTS BY 

MR. JACK SHANNON 

TO 

SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT COMMISSION 

MARCH 18, 1986 

I am Jack Shannon, president of SHANNON engineering, inc. 

I would like to make a statement regarding Quiet 707 operations 
into San Francisco International Airport. 

I am an engineer, an aerodynamicis t by training. I am a business 
man by experience. Perhaps more important to this particular 
issue, I am the inventer of the Quiet 707. 

As an engineer, I have learned to respect the facts. As a 
business man, I have learned to respect the opinions of others. 
My association with the Quiet 707 has given me a very unique 
perspective . 

Noise is an intrusive, annoying environmental problem that demands 
attention. We sympathize with airport managers who balance 
economic benefits to the community with the need to manage air- 
port noise. Theirs is not an easy job. Wherever possible, we 
have been supportive of their efforts. In 1982, we certified a 
procedure that satisfied the Port Authority of New York's local 
noise rule. 

It is however, necessary for me to address several misconceptions 
regarding the Quiet 707. 

It has been said that the retirement of the Boeing 707 was greeted 
"warmly by every person knowledgeable in the aviation industry," 
and that the airplane was "too noisy and fuel inefficient to 
continue to operate in modern fleets." 

Those statements are simply not factual. 

I will address the efficiency of the airplane first. 
uperators of Quiet 707's are meeting an economic need. They 
are transporting the traveling public and providing air 
freight services to our modern society. No other airplane 
today matches the Quiet 707's unique long range and payload 
capacity. 



exposed to jet noise from aircraft departing to the north 
on Runway 01. (Residents often refer to this type of 
noise as "back-blast.) Obviously, power cutback cannot 
be used while the aircraft is on the runway so that this 
area would be exposed to the full takeoff noise. 

3. Shoreline 

This area is exposed to noises of aircraft using the 
right-hand turn after lift-off from Runway 28. Because 
of a long-standing concern on the part of pilots with the 
presence of San Bruno Mountain it is doubtful if a power 
cutback could, or would, be used during this type of 
departure . 

4. San Bruno Gap 

This is the area that would be directly under the air- 
craft executing a power cutback type takeoff. Without 
power cutback Q707 levels would be typically the 115.3 
mentioned previously. With cutback of the type used in 

the certification test on the airplane they would be 
105.5 EPNDB. 



5) Comparisons With Other Part 36 Aircraft 

We reviewed the Part 36 certification noise levels for all 
turbojet aircraft over 75,000 lbs. to provide a comparison with 
the 0707. Of the 31 different types of aircraft in this category 
we found the following: 



1. The maximum full thrust Takeoff noise certification 
value was 4-6 dB lower for all compared to the estimated 
value for the Q707. 

2. Two aircraft had Takeoff noise certification values 
equal to the 0707 value of 105.5 EPNDB. These two did 
not exceed their Takeoff certification limits. The Q707 
exceeds its Takeoff certification limit by 2 EPNDB. 

3. The Q707 sideline noise level is essentially equal to 
that of the four-engined B747 aircraft and 6dB above the 
level for the re-engined DC8-71 aircraft. 

4. Five of the thirty-one aircraft are noisier on 
approach to landing. 



Note also that FAR Part 36 specifically states "No determina- 
tion is made, under this part, that these noise levels are or 
should be acceptable or unacceptable for operation at, into, or 
out of any airport." 



6) Effect of the 0707 on CNEL Contours Around the Airport 

CNEL contours establish the number of residences exposed to 
noise levels exceeding the criterion level of 65 CNEL. The 
noisier aircraft in a mix of aircraft will tend to control the 
CNEL values, the size of the contours and the number of noise 
exposed residences. This fact is a result of the logarithmic 
nature of the CNEL and sound levels in general. 

From the above discussions we estimate that the 0707 air- 
craft, operating at San Francisco would have the following effect 
on the CNEL values around the Airport: 

1. Foster City - No significant change. 

2. Millbrae - A significant increase. 

3. San Bruno Gap - A significant increase. 

4. Shoreline - A significant increase. 



In summary, my analyses lead me to the conclusion that the 
introduction of Q707 type aircraft at San Francisco International 
Airport will lead to higher noise levels in the surrounding com- 
munities. 



Statement 
Page 2 

As to the airplane being "too noisy," and that people "have come 
to question the accuracy the Federal Aviation Agency noise 
procedures : M 

FAA noise tests are extremely complicated and expensive. To 
accomplish our test it required thirty people, two airplanes 
and a week at a remote site. Because of the high visibility 
of the Quiet 707, our work was monitored by two Federal 
Aviation groups, an independent noise consultant, and an 
independent expert within the Department of Transportation. 

The Quiet 707 has since been certificated to similar 
standards by other countries, including the United Kingdom, 
Egypt, and Brazil. 

I am confident the test and results are accurate. 

Let me refer to a chart of dBA. This is a standard used by 
airport authorities to measure community noise: 



TAKEOFF 



APPROACH 















IOU 








P 




w 


f 


r 


r 

■A 


1 


1 




Statement 
Page 3 



Note that the Quiet 707 compares favorably with other 

airplanes operating out of San Francisco International 

Airport. The facts are, it is not "noisy" as some have 
claimed . 

It has also been said that the "Federal Aviation test procedures 
are not appropriate to San Francisco International Airport." 

Federal Noise procedures are consistent with those of the 
European Community through an organization known as ICAO. 
Compliance with these criteria assure all airplanes are 
tested and compared to the same standard. 

People around the world enjoy a uniform system of measuring 
and presenting noise. 

Finally, it has been said that "experienced pilots" have deter- 
mined "that a particular San Francisco International Airport 
departure cannot be accomplished if one used the thrust cutback 
the Federal Aviation Agency permits in its noise testing 

procedure . " 

The Quiet 707's performance in takeoff with or without 
cutback or on approach is identical to any other airplane. 
The Federal Aviation standards assure certain levels of 
performance for all aircraft. 

I will end my statement with a plea that we pursue a solution 

based on fact. To impose a local noise rule pre-empting Federal 
Standards will create an additional and unfair economic burden. A 
burden that aircaft manufacturers, aircraft operators and ultimately 

the traveling public will have to bear. 

In cities around the world the Quiet 707 is a good neighbor. 
It brings to those communities unequaled service and economic 
benefits. It is a quiet neighbor. 

I believe the Quiet 707 should operate at San Francisco 
International Airport. 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATION AIRPORT 



MEETING OF THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



0O0 



SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL, ROOM 282 
SAN FRACISCO, CALIFORNIA 



Tuesday, March 18, 1986, 10:00 a.m. 






Taken Before CHARLOTTE CERVANTEZ, Notary Public 
County of Alameda, State of California 
C.S.R. License No. 4486 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 

20993 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 222 

Hayward, California 94541 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



SAW FRANCISCO AIRPORTS COMMISSIONERS 

HONORABLE MORRIS BERNSTEIN, President 
HONORABLE J. EDWARD FLEISHELL, Vice-President 
HONORABLE DR. Z.L. GOOSBY, Commissioner 
HONORABLE ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS, Commissioner 

LOUIS A. TURPEN, Director of Airports 

DONALD GARIBALDI, Airport General Counsel 

JEAN CARAMATTI, Airports Commission Secretary 

public H J± £ £ I n £ 

March 18, 1986 

Audience Speakers page 

JOHN SIMPSON 1 

JACK SHANNON 8 

CAPT. WALLY SIMONS 14 

DUANE SPENCE 17 

RICHARD DYER 19 

ROGER CHINN 21 

ROBERT IRONSIDE 24 

MARY GRIFFIN 24 

PATRICK DE YOUNG 25 

TOM MERRILL 2 7 

CHARLIE CARSON 30 

PAUL GRIFFITH - 35 

JACK SHANNON 41 

BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



MS. CARAMATTI: Item 8 is a Public Hearing on 
the petition of Southern Air Transport on behalf of 
Burlington Air Freight, Incorporated for waiver of 
Airports Commission Regulations and applicable Air 
Operations Bulletins to permit operation of the Boeing 
7U7-300C aircraft at San Francisco International Airport. 

MR. TURPIN: Mr. President, members of the 
Commission, Mr. John Simpson is here, Kelly Brian Warren, 
on behalf of Burlington Northern, and I believe he would 
like to make some introductory comments or make a 
presentation on behalf of Burlington Northern. 

JOHN SIMPSON 

MR. SIMPSON: Thank you, members of the 
Commission. I want to thank you at the outset for the 
opportunity to speak to you today on the matter which is 
of grave importance to us. I'd like to make it quite 
clear right at the outset that we are not here asking for 
any kind of special treatment, any kind of special favors 
or anytning special in any way. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Before you start, Mr. Simpson, 
may I ask one question? 

MR. SIMPSON: Surely, go ahead. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Did you fly out on Burlington 
Northern? 

MR. SIMPSON: No, sir, I didn't. It's a 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



2 

freight carrier. 

What e are asking is that we be treated the 
same as everybody else that's now operating at the 
airport, and that we be judged by the same standards. We 
think we meet your standards; we know we meet your 
standards . 

Your resolution on noise says nothing more 
than that aircraft have to meet, by January 1 of 1985, the 
stage two standards set by the F.A.R., Federal Aviation 
Regulations of the F.A.A. We meet those standards in 
every way. The question has arisen, though, that the 
standards of the F.A.A. in certifying this airplane 
include a so-called cutback on takeoff and a so-called 
trade-off . 

Now, the first one, is that when you take of 
in the plane you give it full power to start. Then at 
some stage, about 1500 feet perhaps, you cut back the 
power a little bit and go into a climb mode. The F.A.A. 
standards provide for that. All aircraft -- not just 
ours, but all aircraft -- are tested according to that 
cutback . 

The second feature in the F.A.A. standards is 
what they call a trade-off. That is, they take a reading 
at three places. They take a reading on approach, they 
take a reading on landing approach, and on takeoff, and on 
the sideline. If you do not meet one of those, they allow 
a trade-off of two points, assuming that the total of the 
three does not exceed the total of the standards. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



Every 737, every 727, every UC-9 is certified 
exactly the same way using that cutback on takeoff. Most 
of them are certified using the trade-off. 

Now, the F.A.A. has calculated -- and it's in 
our papers too -- that 60 percent of the aircraft that 
operate out of this airport, or 60 percent of the 
"departures" that are operated, are with 727's, 737's 
and DC-9's, which use the cutback or to trade off or both. 

Now, if you look at individual carriers, 
United Airlines, 78 percent of their departures are with 
that type of aircraft. At Braniff 100 percent. So, if 
you applied this standard, that you cannot use a cutback 
or a trade-off, you would have to get rid of some 60 
percent of the departures that there are at this airport. 

Now, we understand that you have a problem 
here with noise. We understand that the community has a 
problem. And we want to be good citizens. What we have 
suggested is that if the trade-off is the problem, we will 
cut back the weight of the airplane, and we will reduce 
the weight by 15,300 pounds, and we will then meet the 
noise standards without any trade-off. 

We would put that forward as a compromise and 
an offer to resolve this thing -- even though we feel that 
we don't really need to do that, because we meet all the 
standards. We feel that we're perfectly legal, we don't 
need a waiver; but in order to resolve this and to get on 
with it, we would be very happy to do that. 

MR. GOOSBY: Do what? Repeat that again. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



MR. SIMPSON: If we reduce the weight of the 
aircraft by 15,300 pounds, we will then meet the F.A.R. 
standards, F.A.R. 36, without the necessity for tnis 
trade-off that I'm speaking of. 

Even though, you must realize, that many of 
the aircraft you have operating here now use that 
trade-off. But we'll waive that right, and we'll cut back 
to 305,000 pounds if that will solve the problem. 

Now, I'd like to say that the Load Balance 
Report -- which is filled out for each flight -- is a 
feceral form, and it's a federal crime to falsify it. 
We'd be glad to let you inspect those at any time. If you 
want, we would be glad to have an officer of the company 
that operates the aircraft certify to you each month the 
exact weight of each takeoff so that you can monitor this. 
You could see that we're actually complying. I assure you 
we will comply with it. 

This is a matter of very grave importance to 
us. In reliance on the resolution which you have and in 
others throughout the country, we've invested 
approximately $45 million in these aircraft, and they 
simply cannot be operated successfully out of Oakland. 

We're trying that now, and frankly, it's a 
Disaster. There's a number of reasons why that's true. 
97 percent of our business comes from the area west of the 
bay, only three percent east of the bay. In addition, 50 
percent of our business is international, and that has to 
go out of San Francisco International Airport, where you 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



have the international departures. 

But most important of all is the fact that in 
order to get the cargo over to Oakland by truck, we have 
to cut off our pickups. We have to pick up as early as 
3:00 or 3:30, while our competitors can pick up at 5:00 
or 5:30. The cargo business is such that everybody waits 
until the end of the day to ship and if you don't get.... 
If you don't have a late pick up, you're dead. 

We've calculated that in business we can 
actually trace, it's cost us half a million dollars in 
January, because of this early cutoff, in order to move 
over Oakland. So, this is a critical thing to us. We 
simply can't operate out of the bay area unless we have 
it. 

This is very frankly one of the reasons why 
we're noping we could be a -- make an accommodation with 
you ano the gooa people who have this noise problem, by 
reducing the weight on the aircraft and reducing the noise 
very significantly. 

I might say that we have met with some of the 
representatives of the community, we recognize their 
problem, we sympathize with it, and we'd be delighted to 
meet with any of them. We have a good many experts here, 
we have Comtran and people who make the hush kits to quiet 
this airplane. We nave representative Shannon who did the 
engineering. We have a representative of Southern Air 
Transport that actually flies the aircraft. I believe we 
have someone here from TRACOR who actually did the work, 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



and wc'q De qlaa to make any of them available to you or 
to any of these community people to discuss this thing and 
try to resolve it. 

Finally let me just say that we operate this 
aircraft all over the country, and we've not had any 
problem with it at any of the other cities. I'd like to 
just read you the list of the cities where we've been 
operating this aircraft regularly without any complaint. 

Portland, Seattle, Oakland, Los Angeles, 
Denver, Kansas City, Saint Louis, Minneapolis - St. Paul, 
Milwaukee, J.F.K. in New York, Buffalo, Philadelphia, 
Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Brownsville, 
Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Detroit, Lorado, Chicago, 
Louisville and Billings. 

None of those airports have objected to the 
O-707. It meets all of the standards the F.A.A., in our 
opinion meets all of your standards, and we would like an 
opportunity to operate it as soon as possible. With that 
I'll cease, and if could, I'd be glad to answer any 
questions or respond to anything anybody else has to say. 

MK. BERNSTEIN: Thank you very much. 

Are there any other questions? 

MR. FLEISHELL: I have some questions. They 
have to do with acquisition of the equipment, so forth. 
Usually lawyers don't know those answers, and it would be 
perhaps more helpful if I withheld my comments until you 
have the company official here. 

MR. SIMPSON: We have one here. If you would 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



like to; 


I could call Mr. 


Merrill right nov* 


7 
, and he could 


respona 


to that 


question , 


whichever way you 


prefer . 




MR. 


BERNSTEIN 


: Let ' s wait . 






Do 


you want to give it now? 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: Perhaps it will 


be answered as 


other witnesses 


testify , 


and I'll withhold 


my comments 


until we 


get down to that 


point . 






MR. 


BERNSTEIN 


: Any questions? 






MR. 


GOOSBY: 


I just have one. 






Did 


you have 


any comments you were going to 


make? 












MR. 


TURPIN: 


Not at this point, 


sir. I'll 


hold any 


comments until a 


fter we hear the testimony. 




MR. 


BERNSTEIN 


: I only have one 


comment , 


Mr. Simp 


son: You better 


not let Oakland hear what you 


saia. 












MR. 


SIMPSON : 


Thank you. 






MR. 


BERNSTEIN 


: Thank you very 


much . 




MR . 


FLEISHELL 


: Pardon me, let 


me ask you one 


question 


- 










MR. 


SIMPSON : 


Yes, sure. 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: Were you counse 


1 with this 


company 


at the 


Lime they 


commenced flight o 


perations in 


the Continental 


U.S.A. ? 








MR. 


SIMPSON : 


No, I personally 


was not. 


Whether 


the firm was, I b 


elieve the firm probably was. 




MR . 


FLEISHELL 


: I see. Do you 


have any 


personal 


knowledge whether your firm made a 


check or a 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



8 

research of the applicable noise regulations of the 
airports that you have just mentioned? 

MR. SIMPSON: I think you'd have to ask 
Mr. Merrill that. I think they did look at them. I can't 
say. I did not. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Fine, thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Simpson. 

Mr. Shannon? 

JACK SHANNON 

MR. SHANNON: I'm Jack Shannon, and I'd like 
to make a few comments. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: What is your connection with 
this? 

MR. SHANNON: I'm President of Shannon 
Engineering. Shannon Engineering began the Quiet 707 
program; in fact, I'm the inventor of the configuration 
and the modification. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

MR. SHANNON: I'm an engineer by training and 
by business and by experience, and I've come to say that I 
am very sympathetic with local noise issues and local 
noise problems. In fact, quite a few years ago my company 
certificated a particular procedure that allowed airplanes 
to comply with a local noise ordinance in the New York 
Port Authority. A local noise ordinance, I'll point out, 
that was consistent with future Federal Aviation .rules . 

It is necessary for me to address some things 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



that I've heard, some feelings that I understand to be 
prevalent in this area on the Quiet 707. I understand 
that there is a feeling that the retirement of the 707 
from the aviation community was greeted warmly by everyone 
knowledgeable in the aviation industry. The airplane was 
reputed to be too noisy and fuel-inefficient to operate 
competitively in today's marketplace. 

Neither of those statements are factual. The 
gentleman that you just visited with here represents a 
company that has operated the airplane econimically . It 
serves a useful purpose in our modern society; in fact, 
it's very interesting, there is no other airplane in the 
world that provides that distance with that payload 
capability today. 

The newer airplanes are quite different as to 
in their size and range. As to the airplane being too 
noisy, I understand, as I read the news media here, the 
press, that there is some question as to the accuracy of 
the Federal Avation noise-gathering process and data 
acquisition . 

F.A.A. noise tests are extremely complicated 
and expensive to complete. In our particular test we had 
over 30 people at a remote site for over a week. We used 
two airplanes, a large amount of equipment, and had 
generally very stressed nerves on the test because of the 
complexity of doing the test. 

It requires a particular kind of atmosphere 
that you cannot order, you must wait until it happens, in 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



10 

terms of humidity and temperature. Because we had so much 
visibility -- being the very first airplane program to 
complete this much of the work in this time period -- our 
work was monitored by two Federal Avation groups, one in 
Washington and one in Seattle; an independent noise 
consultant; an expert within the Department of 
Transportation; and a consultant to our company. 

Since we completed that work, that acceptance 
or that certification has been accepted by the European 
communities and Brazil in South America. I'm absolutely 
confident the results are accurate. 

I brought with me a chart which shows the 
noise of the airplane in D.B.A.'s, which is the more 
common way to measure noise in a locale; and we have 
chosen here to look at a sampling of the airplanes that 
operate from San Francisco (indicating). 

This side of the chart is takeoff and this 
side is approach. Here are the measurements that most 
airports use to look at noise. I say that because the 
Federal Aviation Regulation uses somewhat different and 
terribly more complicated means; but this is what you 
hear . 

Here is a Quiet 707, in the middle of the pack 
in both cases. The airplane is simply not noisy. And 
these are the data, these data resulted from the study 
that I refered to earlier, the one I said I had a great 
amount of confidence in. 

I also believe that there are so many feelings 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



11 

that the test that I just referred to is not appropriate 
in San Francisco. Fortunately, the Federal Aviation 
Regulations are are confident with a worldwide set of 
regulations, those being imposed by a group called the 
International Civil Aviation Organization. 

When we comply with the Federal Aviation 
Regulations, we have then complied with the foreign 
regulations; so, people around the world are protected by 
a consistent, strong set of fair regulations. 

Finally, I believe that -- again reading the 
newspaper -- that there are those who believe the 707 
cannot make a particular departure out of San Francisco 
because of cutback or some other peculiar situation. 
Again because of the strong Federal Aviation Regulations, 
all airplanes are required to comply with the same 
specifications as far as the airplane's performance is 
concerned, whether it's cutback or climbout or anything 
else . 

So, I would like to end this brief statement, 
and I appreciate the opportunity to come here and say 
these things, by making a plea that we pursue a solution 
based on fact, one that gives a fair shake to everyone, 
and treat everybody equally. 

Two, I have a local noise rule that preempts 
the federal standards, simply creates an additional and 
unfair and economic burden; certainly a burden on people 
like me, who try to design airplanes and modify them to be 
economically viable, but ultimately an economic burden on 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 











LZ 


a cornniuni ty , in 


this case 


, San Francisco. 






In 


cities around the world, the Quiet 707 


is a 


very gooa 


neighbor . It's 


brings to those communities 




unequal service 


and economic benefits. I believe the 




Quiet 707 


should be allowed to operate here. Thank you. 




MR. 


BERNSTEIN 


: Thank you. 






MR. 


TURPIN: 


Thank you, Mr. Shannon. 






MR. 


BERNSTEIN 


: Any questions? 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: I have one or two. 






Mr. 


Shannon , 


are you a commercial pilot? 






MR. 


SHANNON: 


I have a commercial pilot's 




license , 


but I 


don't fly 


commercially . 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: Are you type certified for 




a 707? 












MR. 


SHANNON: 


No, no. 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: Fine. As I understand it, 




this new 


"Q" series, as y 


ou call it, the new Q-707, 




received 


a supp 


lemental t 


ype certificate. Is that 




correct? 












MR. 


SHANNON : 


That's right. 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: And the DC-8 that you comp 


are 


it with would in your chart receive an amended type 




certificate. I 


s that correct? 






MR. 


SHANNON: 


I don't oelieve that. I bel 


ieve 


it had a 


supplemental typ 


e certificate also. This is 


the 


Quiet Nig 


ht, th 


e program 


out of Southern California. 






MR. 


TURPIN: 


The 70 Series I think he.' s 




referring 


to. 









BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 











13 




MR. 


SHANNON: 


Oh, okay. Then you're correct. 




MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: Yes. But in adding a hush 


kit 


on the Q 


-707, aid you have to undergo high altitude 




maneuvering tes 


ts? 








MR. 


SHANNON : 


Yes , sir . 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: You did. Fatigue tests? 






MR. 


SHANNON: 


Yes , sir . 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: Crosswind? 






MR. 


SHANNON: 


Yes , sir . 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: You did. 






MR. 


SHANNON: 


Nighttime landings, downwind 




landings 


, engines operati 


ng characteristics, stalls. Four 


months o 


f flyin 


g, I think 


50 hours of flying. 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: If I told you that speaking 




with the 


chief 


pilots of 


airlines here, that they said 




that the 


y could 


not, flying the 707, do a quiet departure 


that you 


said that they could do, would that surprise y 


ou? 




MR . 


SHANNON : 


Well, it would surprise me 




because 


that couldn't be 


a fact. It wouldn't surprise 


me 


because 


sometimes there's 


a communication problem, perh 


aps 


not unlike what 


we saw here for 30 minutes or so. 






MR. 


FLEISHELL 


: Not when you're flying an 




airplane 


, there 


's no communication problems. 






MR. 


SHANNON: 


Yes, sir, there can. I will 




have my 


25th anniversary 


in this business this June. I 


' ve 


cone accident investigation work, flight test, design; 


and 


because 


I'm a p 


ilot, I have some appreciation for -how 




easily p 


eople ' s 


opinions 


ran be different from fact. 





BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



14 

MR. FLEISHELL: Urn-hum. 

MR. SHANNON: I don't mean to cast any 
disrespect on the pilots; we all have a very difficult 
job, including the ladies and gentlemen on this board. 
But the quantitative tests done demonstrate to the 
satisfaction of persons such as myself, and the Federal 
Avation Agency, the investor, and the buyer of the 
article, that it meets certain standards. 

What a pilot feels he can't do, can't do, 
shouldn't do or doesn't want to do for various reasons is 
different. Just like what the community feels like they 
don't want to put up with or do want to put up with. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: That's exactly our problem, 
Mr. Shannon. 

MR. SHANNON: I understand. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: ... is that we unfortunately 
have to place our concerns in the hands of the pilot the 
moment that he has to make the kinds of decisions that he 
has to make. That was just a comment. 

MR. SHANNON: I understand. Thank you. 

MR. TURPIN: Thank you. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Have nothing further. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

Captain Wally Simons. 

CAPT. WALLY SIMONS 
MR. SIMONS: Good morning, I'm Wally Simons, 
I'm a Captain with a major airline. My opinions are my 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



15 

own, not of the company. I have 12,000 hours in the 707, 
I have a total flight time of 32,000 hours, and I've heard 
some... pardon me, I've got a little bit of laryngitis 
this morning. 

I've heard some misinterpretations here this 
morning. Somebody said United Airlines pulls back their 
power. That's not true. They pull it back to a normal 
climb power. My airline will not allow our pilots to pull 
the power oack below normal climb power. Basically the 
Airline Pilots Association, which has 26,000 members, will 
not allow our pilots to pull the power back below normal 
climb power. 

On this departure they're going to make, when 
they reach about 1000 feet or so, they're pulling the 
power back to below normal climb power. At that point 
they could hit an adversion, which lowers the power that 
they already have, or hit a wind sheer. They'll also be 
in a 25-degree bank, which increases the gross weight of 
the aircraft. That's the first thing that I figure is 
safety wise. 

Number two, on landing; nobody said anything 
about the landing. They're using 25 degrees flap strictly 
to reduce the power. It won't take as much power to land 
with twenty-five as it aoes with fifty. However, there's 
a statement in there that says the pilot should keep the 
engines spun up in case he wants immediate power, because 
there is no thing as a flight idle. 

In the 707, when you go to 50 flaps, it 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



lb 

automatically spins up all four engines so that you can 
get immediate response out of it. This particular engine 
at dead idle has a very, very slow rotation weight up to 
full power. So, if they're making an approach 
with 25 flaps, hit a wind sheer, and all of a sudden 
they're 20 knots past, what's the pilot going to do? He's 
going to pull the power back to idle, dead idle, or he's 
going to have to go around. Now, if something happens and 
he wants to make an immediate departure, he's got a very 
slow spin-up on those engines. Very slow. 

One other item I heard was it seems like 
they're going to be good to you by reducing their gross 
weight to 305,000 pounds for takeoff. I'd like to ask 
them a question: If they took off in San Francisco with 
full gross weight, they couldn't land in Fort Wayne or 
somewhere else because they're going to be above their 
landing gross weight. So, they're reducing their weight 
by not taking as much fuel. They're still going to carry 
the same amount of cargo. 

But you see what I mean, if you take off with 
full gross weight here, your maximum landing gross is two 
forty-seven, you're going to have to burn an awful lot of 
fuel between here and Fort Wayne to get down to two 
forty-seven. So, what they're saying is we're going to 
reduce our gross weight, but in fact what they're doing, 
they're carrying less fuel, because they have to carry 
less fuel to make their maximum landing gross in . 
Fort Wayne. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



17 

MR. GOOSBY: Does that make any difference in 
the noise factor though, whether the weight is fuel or 
cargo? 

MR. SIMONS: No. That would be a help. Sure, 
you'll have a better climb gradient. 

I'm sorry that these fellows, it seems to me 
like, they're trying to make the airport fit the airplane 
instead of the airplane fitting the airport. It's a 
beautiful airplane, they've done a lot of good engineering 
on it; and I feel sorry for them, that they can't meet the 
normal standards of using normal power. So, basically 
it's a safety item. Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, captain. 

MR. TURPIN: Thank you, captain. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Duane Spence of the 
Hillsborough Homeowners Association. 

DUANE SPENCE 

MR. SPENCE: Good morning. My name is 
Duane Spence, I am the President of the Hillsborough 
Homeowners Association, and today I'm a spokesman for 
those neighbors of tne San Francisco International Airport 
who are working through the Airport Community Roundtable 
as a result of the recent settlement of litigation. 

I'm here to urge you to reject the application 
for variance to Resolution 780131 and its applicable 
bulletins by Burlington Northern. In order to be . 
nondiscriminatory, we urge you to likewise reject all 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



lb 

applications for variances to your resolution. 

Since the days of the joint land use study, 
our group has been actively working toward airport noise 
mitigation and had looked forward to the deadline after 
which aircraft out of compliance with your regulations 
would be excluded from operation at the airport. 

Presently the airport and the surrounding 
communities are cooperating at an unprecedented level. We 
regard 780131 and its A.O.B.'s as an act of good faith by 
the Airports Commission. Without a doubt, the most 
effective noise measures are on airport actions. One of 
the most important actions is your policy, which changes 
the fleet mix and gradually weeds out the worst offenders. 

The preponderence of noise from operations is 
departures at the airport. Two very effective noise 
mitigation measures which are becoming more widely used 
are the nighttime departures, using Runway 10, and the 
shoreline departures from Runway 28. It is possible that 
the shoreline departure, with its inherent climbing turn, 
could fall victim if aircraft are allowed to operate at 
the airport -- which qualified marginally by using reduced 
power on take off. 

Furthermore, the noise takeoff s -- I'm 
sorry -- the noise trade-offs allowed by the F.A.A. for 
airplanes to qualify under F.A.R. 36 are of no value in 
diminishing the noise perception by the human ear. The 
ears report everything that they hear to their host. It's 
unfortunate that Burlington Northern is so severely 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



19 

impacted, but ar examination of the facts at nana leads us 
to the conclusion that their predicament is not due to 
discrimination, but rather it is due to circumstances. 

With all due respect, we feel those 
circumstances are largely brought about by their own 
actions. We take no comfort in their argument that since 
others are allowed to operate at the airport with equally 
noisy airplanes they should be allowed back in after the 
deadline. On the contrary; our position is that if there 
are such airplanes operating at the airport, we urge that 
they be eliminated from the fleet in a very timely manner. 

Having established resolution 780131, we urge 
you to maintain its standards. Don't let it become 
ciilluted by allowing any exceptions to its enforcement. 
Thank you very much for letting me speak. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you very much. 

MR. TURPIN: Thank you, Mr. Spence. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Richard Dyer from the 
California Department of Transportation. 

RICHARD DYER 

MR. DYER: Thank you, Mr. President, and 
members of the commission. As stated, my name is 
Richard G. Dyer, I'm an Airport Environmental Specialist 
with the California Department of Transportation, commonly 
called Caltrans here in California. I'm with the division 
of aeronatics in that agency. 

My reason for being here today is actually 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



20 

I've been requested by Mr. Turpin to make some of the 
information aware. We have no official position with 
regard to your action on this matter, nor the ruling under 
which you're using, but we do have other information which 
should be made known to you and kept in mind during the 
deliberations. 

Caltrans and specifically the Division of 
Aeronatics is the caretaker of the regulation entitled 
Noise Standards, which applies to airports in California. 
My duties within the Division of Aeronatics involve the 
implementation of that regulation, the noise standards 
established, and method for describing noise. And they 
impose requirements on airport proprietors under certain 
circumstances. 

The primary regulatory feature of the noise 
standards is that at the noise impact area is expected to 
be zero unless the airport proprietor attains a variance 
from the State of California. The noise impact area, as 
you probably are aware, is the areas devoted to 
residential and other noise-sensitive uses that lie inside 
the specified criterion noise level in the near vicinity 
to an airport. 

San Francisco International Airport has 
requested and has been granted the appropriate variances 
by our department. The current variance for San Francisco 
attaches conditions from a previous variance, one of which 
states essentially that the airport shall not knowingly 
take actions which increase the noise impact area above 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



21 

that in existence at the time that that prior variance was 
issued . 

The requirement contained in this condition 
may apply to the situation which is before you now. The 
aircraft involved, as you've just heard testimony, is 
the g-707. It has been modified to meet noise 
certification requirements of F.A.R. part 36, as it is 
required to do. The aircraft registered 105.5 decibels in 
the effective perceived noise level scale, which is the 
one that is appropriate for certification of aircraft. 

The noise impact area for San Francisco 
International lies immediately under the strait-out 
departure path for Runways 28 Left and 28 Right. The 
introduction of this aircraft at San Francisco is likely 
to cause some additional noise in the noise impact area as 
referenced above. 

I thank you, and I would answer any questions. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

MR. TURPIN: Thank you, Mr. Dyer. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Dyer. 

Roger Chinn from the Airport Community 
Roundtable . 

ROGER CHINN 
MR. CHINN: Commission, my name is 
Roger Chinn, I'm the Chairman of the Airport Community 
Roundtable. I'd like to read part of the letter that was 
sent to Secretary Dole at my behalf, it explains the 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



22 

position of the round table, and it might help to explain 
what the round table is. 

"The airport community roundtable is an 
organization of members of the County of San Mateo, 
City and County of San Francisco, the airport and 
locally elected officials from ten cities surrounding 
the airport. The purpose of the roundtable is to 
coordinate implementation of noise mitigation 
measures at San Francisco International Airport." 

When the situation of the Q-707 was brought to 
the Roundtable's attention, we deliberated on the question 
of whether this would have an impact on the communities 
around the airport. The Q-707 and other similarly 
modified 707's and DC-8 aircraft would have a significant 
negative impact on all the persons living around the 
San Francisco International Airport. 

As Mr. Dyer just indicated to you, the Q-707 
has a noise -- takeoff noise rating of 105.5 D.B., which 
is two D.B.'s higher than the allowable F.A.A. noise 
regulations for take off. In that takeoffs are over 
populated areas at San Francisco International Airport, 
this would create greater impact on the people around the 
airport . 

The roundtable then discussed the actions that 
we should take. As I indicated, a letter was sent to 
Secretary Doyle as well as to all other elected federal 
and state officials in our area. The response was 
inadequate in that they felt that the F.A.A. had reasons 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



23 

to allow that to happen, the use of the 707, but I would 
ormg to your attention a ruling that took place at the 
City of Los Angeles. I'll read this to you verbatim. 

"A ruling in favor of the City of Los Angeles 
and the Department of Airports, the United States Courts 
of Appeal for the 9th Circuit has affirmed District Court 
Judge Harry L. Hubb's refusal to grant Ecuatoriana 
Airlines a preliminary injunction prohibiting the city 
from enforcing the L.A.X. noise regulation. Equitoriana 
has sought to operate its Boeing 707 aircraft at L.A.X. in 
violation of the noise regulation. In its recent ruling, 
the 9th Circuit held as reasonable the District Court's 
determination that a municipal airport proprietor may 
prohibit sources of noise at its airport. 

I ask that you consider that as a precedence 
for your action to not allow the Q-707's from operating at 
S.F.O. I'd like to conclude by indicating to you that as 
we all are aware, noise from San Francisco International 
Airport presently does impact the communities around the 
airport. We have complaints and litigation action on the 
airport, and we are in the midst of resolving many of 
those complaints and litigation. I think it's pretty 
important to keep in mind that the use of another aircraft 
that has already been determined to have a noisy I didn't 
remember standard to operate out of S.F.O. would be 
unacceptable, even with weight reductions, it would not be 
acceptable, because our present aircraft that are - 
operating already create a noise standard, and these are 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



24 

quiter ana more efficient aircraft. Thank you. 

MR. TURPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chinn. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

Just two more. Mr. Robert Ironside of the 
City Council of Millbrae. 

MR. IRONSIDE: My name is Carl Ironside, I'm a 
planning officer of the City of Millbrae. I was asked by 
the city council to present their feeling about this 
application. Millbrae' s City Council has worked for many 
years with your airport management to achieve I a less 
noisy environment for parts of the cities and the city 
counsel feels that this application would be insistent 
with our mutual objectives of achieving a quieter 
environment. So, we would support the management's 
position and urge that you deny this request. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

Mary Griffin of Millbrae, Millbrae City 
Council member. How are you Mary? Hi. 

MS. GRIFFIN: Hello, Morris. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: You haven't raised hell with 
me in a long time. 

THE WITNESS: Well, I'm here today. But I 
hope I'm not -- I hope I'm not in conflict with you or the 
Commission. As Mr. Ironside has pointed out, our city has 
a great deal of concern about the environment immediately 
surrounding our city. I'm here wearing two hats, not only 
am I on the city counsel in the City of Millbrae, -but I 
teach in an elementary school in the Gap where many planes 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



25 

take off. It's many disconcerting for one to have to stop 
in the middle of a phonics lesson in order to -- in fact, 
every child in my class now says, well, let's wait until 
the airplane goes over so that we can hear. 

I also represent one of the most heavily 
impacted areas. Some of our residents are right behind 
runway one. People who have told me that their houses are 
very well insulated, fear for chair their children's 
hearing because they must play out doors sometime. It 
seems to us wonderful that the round table and the airport 
are working together to try to reduce some of this noise 
impact, and it's very disconcerting to think that a 
company may come in and reverse the direction that we have 
been going, so, I would ask you please to not add any 
additional noise impact to our environment. Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. We have one of 
these every week, so, I'll be forced to see you again. 
Thank you . 

Mr. Patrick De Young of TRACOR Aviation? 

PATRICK DE YOUNG 

MR. DE YOUNG: My name is Patrick De Young, 
I'm with TRACOR Aviation, I'm the vice-president of 
aircraft sales. And I wanted to correct something that 
Roger Chinn pointed out when he read the very extensive 
legal opinion. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Would you speak into the mic, 
please . 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



26 

MR. DE YOUNG: He spoke from a very extensive 
legal opinion of the Los Angeles airport. And that 
opinion was for an unhushed 707. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: We're aware of that. 

MR. DE YOUNG: Okay. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: If you know. 

MR. DE YOUNG: I thought that you thought it 
was not a hushed -- 

MR. FLEISHELL: No; we have a half a dozen 
lawyers here who keep us advised very well. 

MR. DE YOUNG: While I'm here, I must say that 
it's my job to install these hush kits on the airplanes, 
and my customer base of all of the airlines that are 
making long-range plans to build up the air transportation 
system of our nation really depends upon the federal rules 
of F.A.R. stage two and also the international rules and 
people I've sold overseas for N.X. 16 of V.K.O. 

When they spend a great deal of money to 
improve their airplanes and comply with noise, and the 
Quiet 707 is quiet than many other airplanes that operate 
out of their airport, and a company comes along that 
contributes to the economic well-being of your area, and 
that has invested 70 million bucks in their sorting 
facility and wants to be a good member of the community 
and will create an increment so small that it's hardly 
measureable than the one departure every night at 7:30, 
then it seems that it's real discrimination against the 
federal rules. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



27 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

MR. TURPIN: Thank you, Mr. De Young. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Don't the federal rules say 
that we get to say what's too noisy for us? 

MR. DE LONG: Except for discrimination. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Well that's not really the 
point, is it? 

MR. FLEISHELL: I'd like to ask some questions 
of the representative of the company, to be familiar about 
dates of acquisition. 

MR. TURPIN: Mr. Simpson, Commissioner 
Fleishell wondered if you wouldn't mind coming back up and 
bringing some representatives of the company to respond to 
some questions the commission might have. 

MR. FLEISHELL: What is your name, sir? 

TOM MERRILL 

MR. MERRILL: Tom Merrill. 

MR. FLEISHELL: And your position with the 
company? 

MR. FLEISHELL: Senior Vice-President and 
General Counsel. Unfortunately I'm one of those attorneys 
you referenced earlier. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Okay, I hold the same license 
for over 34 years, so, I'm acquainted with the problems. 

Were you involved in the purchase of these 
707 ' s? 

MR. MERRILL: Yes, sir, I was. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



2d 

MR. FLEISHELL: When did you acquire them? 

MR. MERRILL: We initially -- 

MR. FLEISHELL: The beginning date? 

MR. MERRILL: I'm sorry? 

MR. FLEISHELL: The beginning date. 

MR. MERRILL: The beginning date when we first 
put an option on the aircraft, the 707 's and other 
aircraft, was November of 1984. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Where were they then located? 

MR. MERRILL: At that time most of those 
aircraft were overseas, two of them were in the U.S. and 
were not being used. 

MR. FLEISHELL: That's right. At that time 
was it your intention to add these hush kits? 

MR. MERRILL: That's correct. 

MR. FLEISHELL: I see. Had you done any 
research on the noise rules of various airports? 

MR. MERRILL: Our research, as far as I'm 
aware of -- but I'm not the technical man; he had surgery 
today, he couldn't be here, Mr. Neff -- but we looked 
extensively at the federal rules and checked to make sure 
what those aircraft would be certified as, would be 
complying with, their requirements and that around the 
country. But again, I'm not the technical expert, I 
couldn't tell you if we looked specifically at various 
cities . 

MR. FLEISHELL: Mr. Simpson, do you have any 
knowledge of that, whether the company ever addressed the 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



2 9 

local noise ordinances of the various airports which you 
intended to land at? 

MR. SIMPSON: No, sir, I don't personally. 

MR. MERRILL: Mr. Simpson and his firm were 
not representing the company at that time in this matter. 

MR. FLEISHELL: I see. But when you were 
there -- you're also a lawyer -- you're aware that local 
communities do have the legal right to make noise 
regulations, so long as they are nondiscriminatory and not 
in direct conflict with the F.A.A. rules. 

MR. MERRILL: I don't think we contest that. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Fine. But you're telling me 
you're not aware of whether you ever looked at our rules. 

MR. MERRILL: I'm not aware if we ever looked 
at San Francisco, though all of our operators that we 
contracted with must look at the various city rules, and I 
suspect that they probably did. But I just can't answer 
that directly. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Do you have anyone here with 
you who could tell us that? 

MR. MERRILL: I might possibly have one of the 
gentleman from Southern Aviation. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Well, it might be helpful, 
because I have some questions on dates. 

MR. MERRILL: Charlie, would you? 

Charlie Carson, with Southern Air Transport, 
who is our operator for this plane. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



30 

CHARLIE CARSON 

MR. FLEISHELL: Mr. Carson, my question to you 
is: Do you have any information on the subject of your 
firm, your company, inspecting the noise, local noise 
regulations of any or all of the airports that you 
intended to land at? 

MR. CARSON: Sir, we undertook an evaluation 
of the 707' s probably about a year before Burlington 
Northern did, and when we analyzed the opportunity with 
the aircraft and made a decision as to whether or not the 
airplane met the standards and also made economic sense 
for us, we looked at the federal regulations and we 
analyzed the information that was being provided to us by 
the modification firm of Shannon Engineering, and TRACOR, 
ana we became satisfied that they would in fact produce an 
aircraft that met the standards of F.A.R. 36 stage two. 

We then looked at the economics of the 
aircraft and came to the conclusion that the 707, the 
Q-707, with hush kits, was an aircraft whose time had come 
again, and that these airplanes that had been retired in 
fact had many years of useful life. We have operated 
under the assumption, and perhaps fallaciously, that 
communities could apply consistent rules. 

A community could say we don't want any 
airplanes in here, we don't want any airplanes after 
midnight, or we don't want any airplanes that don't meet 
stage three, or we don't want any airplanes that. don't 
meet stage two. Never in our wildest dreams did we 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



31 

contemplate running into a situation where an airport said 
some airplanes that meet stage two are acceptable, but 
others are not, and therefore a specific model of aircraft 
is not acceptable. So, therefore, sir, to answer your 
question in a long-winded manner, we didn't perceive that 
a community could discriminate against certain types of 
airplanes that met F.A.R. 36 stage two. 

MR. FLEISHELL: You keep using the word 
"discrimination," and we don't think we are discriminating 
if we decide to rule against you. We are eliminating all 
of them. It is our feeling that we are not limited to 
forbiding aircraft at our airport that may be less noisy. 
We don't think we can take the most noisy airplane at the 
airport now and say that anyone who isn't noisier than 
that can come in. We don't think that's the law, and that 
is not what we see are all about. Thank you. 

MR. CARSON: Yes, sir. 

MR. GOOSBY: Questions? 

In your comments, would you be sure -- I guess 
you're going to have a list of comments you want to make? 

MR. TURPIN: One or two. 

MR. GOOSBY: Would you touch on the point 
raised that we have let the airlines that are presently 
coming here but who are flying in and out of the airport 
and what their plans are for the future? 

MR. TURPIN: Yes. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Can I ask a question: Is the 
F.A.A.'s position in the record, our record? I think it's 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



32 

important that our record be clear, and it should be in 
the record from the staff, all the information that we've 
been provided, just so it's technically done. You're kind 
of watching that carefully? 

MR. TURPIN: Yes, sir, we will. 

MR. FLEISHELL: The F.A.A. has a position, the 
staff has a position, I think the attorneys have given us 
some advice. That should all be made technically a part 
of this record. 

MR. TURPIN: And Mr. Simpson's information as 
well will be made part of the record. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Yes, we've read his very 
competent brief at great length. 

MR. TURPIN: It would be my intention, 
Mr. Commissioner, to include all the testimony here, plus 
all pertinent documentation from Mr. Elliott of the 
F.A.A. , Mr. Simpson, as well as documentation generated by 
staff or the Airports Commission. As well, I would like 
to include in the record a letter I received late 
yesterday afternoon from Senator Pete Wilson to 
Secretary Dole on this very subject, and would like to 
include his letter as a part of the record as well. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Shouldn't we be given copies 
of it? 

MR. FLEISHELL: Well, you might let the 
audience know what he had to say. 

MR. TURPIN: Essentially the letter is written 
to Secretary Dole to express his support for San Francisco 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



• 33 

International Airport in its effort to implement noise 
mitigation measures benefiting the surrounding community. 
He goes on to state: 

"The Airports Commission has worked with 
surrounding communities, airlines and the F.A.A. to 
implement recommendations to reduce aircraft noise 
in the communities surrounding the airport, while 
balancing the heavy flight requirements of a large 
metropolitan, international airport. 

The F.A.A.'s threat to terminate $30 million 
in federal grants unless San Francisco International 
allows the Q-707 to operate at the airport needlessly 
threatens all the noise mitigation measures which 
we have implemented up to now. The Q-707 has a 
measured takeoff noise of 105.5 decibels, two 
decibels higher than the noise level limits 
established by the F.A.A. itself. 

Contrary to some claims, the airport's 
exclusion of the Q707 aircraft is based on these 
noise levels alone and is is not discriminatory. 
Because most takeoffs from San Francisco 
International fly over populated areas, forcing the 
airport to receive Q-707 aircraft will needlessly 
increase to even more intolerable levels the aircraft 
noise these residential communities must suffer. 

I appreciate the progress the F.A.A. has 
made in it's airport noise mitigation efforts and 
hope that San Francisco International Airport will 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



34 

provide yet another example of the success of these 
efforts. Thank you for your consideration of this 
matter . 

Sincerely, Pete Wilson." 

MR. BERNSTEIN: I thought you said he couldn't 



read , 



MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yeah. 

MR. TURPIN: Only things you send me, sir. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I've got one comment. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Then we'll take it under 
advisement and we'll try to have an answer for you in a 
couple of weeks. 

MR. TURPIN: I want to make a couple of 
comments, commissioner, before you close. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Of course. 

MR. TURPIN: Yes, I'm sorry, commissioner? 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I just have one comment that 
I'd like to get covered in your comments. My 
understanding is that the F.A.A. is working with the 
airport to encourage the use of the visible shoreline 
departure route, and there's a notion that the cutback 
procedures that would be required to the rules might not 
be consistent with that; and I just, you know, would like 
to get a comment on that particular thing. 

MR. SIMPSON: Could I respond to that, please? 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Sure. 

MR. SIMPSON: I don't want to interrupt. 

MR. TURPIN: No; Mr. Simpson, go ahead. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



35 

MR. SIMPSON: What I'd likes to do, if I may, 
is ask Mr. Paul Griffith -- who is a pilot and is 
vice-president of flight for Southern Air Transport, which 
is flying this aircraft both for themselves and for us. 

Paul, would you come up, please? 



PAUL GRIFFITH 

MR. SIMPSON: Am I correct that you are a 
Q-707 pilot? 

MR. GRIFFITH: That's correct. 

MR. SIMPSON: And can this aircraft execute 
both the quiet aid and visual shoreline departures? 

MR. GRIFFITH: Yes, it does. And there seems 
to be a misunderstanding about the cutback procedure. In 
both of the procedures utilized at San Francisco 
International they use a route that takes it or apparently 
a less noise-sensitive area, and also a climb gradient 
which gets it high and then away from the people which the 
noise impacts, rather than a cutback procedure. And in 
neither of those procedures, the quiet aid or the quiet 
shoreline departure, is there any cutback procedure. 

We can fly that departure with 707 's just as 
all other aircraft that are currently operating out of the 
airport can. The only differentiation is between 
propeller aircraft and jet aircraft draft. There is no 
difference between four engine jets or stage three jets, 
or any other. And that seems to be a misinterpretation. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



36 

MR. SIMPSON: Does that clear up a question 
that you have? At some point I would like to respond to 
the people, if I could. 

MR. TURPIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Simpson, did you 
say you have some additional comments? 

MR. SIMPSON: You go ahead, if you have 
something you want to say. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Are we going to take this 
under some advisement? 

MR. TURPIN: Yes, sir, I think that's probably 
appropriate, commissioner. There's probably a lot of 
information I know the commission has been bombarded with 
on this subject from all others. I'd like to make a 
couple of comments, though; one, I wanted to clarify 
something that I may have said earlier, and want to 
correct and that is that advice from our attorneys on this 
subject would not be made part of the public record. That 
would be considered a confidential communication between 
the attorneys and the airport staff and commission. 

There are a couple things that are floating 
around that I think are important. I believe is 
Mr. Westler here, by the way? 

MR. WESTLER: Yes, I'm here, Lou. 

MR. TURPIN: I just want to introduce 
Mr. Westler from the Federal Aviation Administration in 
Washington, D.C., who is in attendance at the meeting and 
in the past has, if you you will, come out and assisted us 
on another number of subjects. He's simply here today as 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



37 

an observer. 

Is that correct? 

MR. WESTLER: Yes, sir. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Lou, you might acknowledge 
Leonard Carusee from the office of the General Counsel of 
the F.A.A. 

MR. TURPIN: I'm sorry, Leonard. 

There were a number of comments made that I'd 
like to just briefly respond to. We're really not talking 
about one departure a day or one arrival a day. Most 
certainly that is the case with Burlington Northern. 

However, there is a large market in this type 
of retrofit for both the DC-8 and 707. And we've seen 
some numbers in publications from TRACOR Shannon which 
would indicate the potential market as high as two to 
three hundred 707 's in the world, and a like number, 
certainly a hundred or so, DC-8's. 

So, what we do is we face the specter not of a 
single aircraft operation daily, but we face a specter of 
other operators coming to us and asking us if they can be 
included as well, including the Q-707 here, would most 
certainly offer other persons the right to come in and 
request the waiver as well, so that they might operate a 
similarly retrofitted aircraft into San Francisco 
International Airport. 

We do have a takeoff noise problem at 
San Francisco, and it is unique to San Francisco.- When we 
take off on our runways, we do it over a populated area, 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



38 

or you must execute what we commonly call the shoreline 
departure in order to avoid overflying South 
San Francisco. 

Experienced pilots we've talked to, and I've 
heard from the focus at Burlington Northern now, seem to 
think that the way the aircraft was operated during the 
tests is not the way it could be operated in the real 
world environment of San Francisco. I've talked to 
probably four to six pilots on this very subject, all of 
them indicate that they would require much more power than 
is currently stated in the supplemental certificate 
granted by the F.A.A. 

The aircraft itself, although having been 
retrofitted with a hush kit, the majority of the noise 
abatement on this specific airplane comes from procedural 
changes, flight procedural changes, and not from the 
retrofit itself. 

I believe, if my memory serves, that 
Mr. John Mills, who came up to visit us with BB&N Labs, at 
one time indicated that the retrofit itself would probably 
be two to three E.P.N.D.B., would make a difference of two 
to three E.P.N.D.B. on the total noise of the aircraft, 
and the rest was picked up by flight procedure changes. 

That's very important to us. The original 707 
I think was about 113 E.P.N.D.B. If we're talking two to 
three E.P.N.D.B. on takeoff due to just engine treatment 
with acoustical materials, you're still talking .about a 
potential of 110 to 111 E.P.N.D.B. on takeoff on full 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



39 

power if these flight procedure changes aren't strictly 
adhered to. 

We also recognize that a pilot is in command 
of the aircraft, and he must make appropriate decisions 
for flight safety; and as such, although this aircraft was 
flown in a specific manner in the Arizona desert, most 
certainly we think the environment in San Francisco, and 
at least it's our information, that more than likely it 
would not be flown in that same manner from San Francisco. 

There has been some comment about 60 percent 
of the aircraft at San Francisco International being stage 
two, based on some 1984 data. I'm sure that data would 
also reflect that an awful lot of aircraft that flew out 
of San Francisco were stage one as well, since the 707 
were still operating at that time. 

Admittedly, the backbone of the fleet in the 
United States is the stage two aircraft, the question is, 
when we talk about cutbacks or trade-offs or both, if you 
you will, and we take a look at the list which you've been 
provided by the F.A.A., we find that there are only two 
aircraft on the list of 55 that are operating out of -- at 
San Francisco. 

We have personally called each of the airlines 
sat San Francisco to discuss this point with them. And 
those two aircraft comprise, it is our best information at 
this point, 12 departures a day out of the roughly 500 to 
600 departures from San Francisco. So, we are talking 
about bringing. . . . 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



4U 

The Q-707 petition is a petition to allow 
entry to an aircraft that in our view would be one of the 
noisier aircraft, if not the noisiest aircraft, departing 
San Francisco International Airport. I might call your 
attention to the list of the 25 aircraft that was provided 
by Mr. Westler's office through Mr. Simpson to us. When 
we checked the two aircraft that currently operate at our 
airport of that list of 25, without tradeoff, have its 
takeoff E.P.N.D.B. of 100. Now, that is five and a half 
E.P.N.D.B. lower than the certificated... certification on 
the Q-707. This generates considerably more noise energy 
just at five and a half E.P.N.D.B., generates considerably 
more noise energy. I believe it's -- 

MR. GOOSBY: Even the noisier ones are still 
five points under. 

MR. TURPIN: Or three -- if you will, if you 
accept Burlington Northern's suggestion of 103.1 
E.P.N.D.B. with a weight reduction, it's still 3.1 
E.P.N.D.B. higher than the two aircraft we have operating 
on that list. That's about 104 percent more noise energy 
and about 24 percent louder. 

So, what we're saying is that we think this 
aircraft specifically, and aircraft like it, the DC-8 with 
the hush kit, introduced into the environment, and 
operated in a real world sense, are going to introduce 
more noise into our environment. It will increase the 
size of the noise boundary. I think Mr. Dyer has. 
commented on that. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



41 

It is our firm belief that this in fact would 
happen. My recommendation to you is of course in writing, 
it remains, that we not permit entry to the 707. I don't 
believe that we've been discriminatory in any way, shape 
or form in denying entry to this aircraft. Clearly the 
Airports Commission has set a deadline date of 1-1-85 for 
the exclusion of these type aircraft; and we have not, 
since that time, based on your instructions to me, allowed 
any such aircraft to operate out of San Francisco 
International . 

So, that briefly concludes my comments. I 
know you've got the written material before you. I would 
invite in Simpson now, if he wishes, to come forth and 
make a statement. 

JACK SHANNON 

MR. GOOSBY: Are you the engineer? 

MR. SHANNON: Yes I am. 

MR. GOOSBY: Is there any movement afoot to 
increase the kit that will make them quieter, to increase 
the effectiveness of them? 

MR. SHANNON: Yes, as I have pointed out 
earlier, we have aone things in the past to work with 
local communities, and I believe what Burlington Northern 
has offered to do is an example of that. 

But let me say that as I listen to this 
discussion here, there is a lot in this, if you ' 1-1 forgive 
me, that's just not true. And I will support this 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



42 

community ana this board because we all have to be 
reasonable people, but I think we better get our facts 
straight . 

I will cooperate with you or my office will. 
We see did do the flight tests, we did do the analysis, 
and I have stars all over my back from working with this 
gentleman in the back of the room, Mr. Westler, to 
demonstrate the noise signatures of the airplane. And I 
think, as I tried make in my little speech to you, if we 
can work with the facts, we'll cooperate with you and 
we'll work with you; but I'm hearing a lot here, and I 
don't think it's intentional, I think it's more of a 
misunderstanding that's just not true. We can do more, 
and I think this is an example that Burlington Northern 
has offered to do with the weight off load. 

MR. TURPIN: I might suggest -- 

Thank you Mr. Shannon. I might suggest to 
Mr. Simpson that based on the comments that he's heard 
today, if there's any supplemental information he'd like 
to file with my office or the Airports Commission 
pertinent to our concern or further information for the 
Commission, we would appreciate receiving that information 
by the end of the week or at least no later than Monday of 
next week so the commission might have an opportunity to 
deliberate on it prior to making their final decisions. 

At this point, sir, unless there's anyone who 
would like to address the Airports Commission for. this, I 
suggest we conclude the public hearing portion. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



43 



MR. BERNSTEIN: We'll have a decision in a 
couple weeks . 

MR. TURPIN: At the next commission meeting, 
sir? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Of course, yes. Yeah, yeah. 

(Hearing adjourned at 11:00 a.m.) 



0O0-- 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



44 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 



) SS . 



I, the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State of 
California, hereby certify that the foregoing Public 
Hearing was taken at the time and place herein stated; 
that the proceedings of said Public Hearing were reported 
by me, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and disinterested 
person, and were thereafter transcribed under my direction 
into typewriting; that the foregoing is a full, complete 
and true record of said hearing. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for either or any of the parties in the foregoing 
Public Hearing, nor am I in any way interested in the 
outcome of the cause named herein. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 
affixed my seal this 28th day of March 1985. 



H&i \j county of ^uameda » 
% ^^ b, coanisun Expires l!ov. 1 3 J987J 






CHARLOTTE CERVANTEZ 
CSR #4486 -Vjiotary Pub^i 
State of Californi 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



Kp 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JUN 3 1986 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARV 



MINUTES 



APRIL 15, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

April 15, 1986 



CALENDAR 


AGENDA 




SECTION 


ITEM 


TITLE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF M 



RESOLUTION 

NUMBER PAGE 



86-0072 



Announcement by Director on 
Ground Transportation Infor- 
mational Meeting 



D. SPECIAL ITEM: 



Petition of Southern Air 
Transport on Behalf of 
Burlington Air Freight, Inc. 
for Waiver of Airports 
Commission Regulations and 
Applicable Air Operations 
Bulletins to Permit Operation 
of the Boeing 707-300C Air- 
craft at San Francisco Inter- 
national Airport 86-0073 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

2. Bid Call - Contract No. 1667: 
Car Wash Faci lities 

Airport Maintenance Base 4-6 

3. Termination of Lease: 

Leather Care - SFO 86-0074 6 

4. Authorization for Pre-Bid 
Conference: South Terminal 
and International Terminal 

Shoeshine Services 86-0075 6-7 

5. Authorization to Award the 
Lease of Full Service Baggage 
Storage Concession to Travel 

Central , Inc. 86-0076 7 



6. Renewal Option for Lease of 
Entertainment Center/Video 
Game Room in the North 

Terminal 86-0077 7 

7. Public Parking Agreement - One 

Year Extension 86-0078 7 

8. Award of Airport Contract No. 
1568R: Paving the Center Area 

of the Garage 86-0079 7-8 

9. Charter Amendment Proposal for 
Exemption of Deputy Chief, 

Airport Police 86-0080 8 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

10. Declaration of Emergency: 
Roof Drainage Work 

International Terminal 86-0081 8-9 

11. Airport Contract No. 1585R: 
Emergency Security Fencing 
Repair (1985-86) - Type II 

Contract Modification 86-0082 9 

12. Resolution Aoproving 
Modification No. 2 to 
Marquis/Wong & Brocchini's 
Professional Services 
Contract for Additional 
Work Related to the 
Reconstruction of the 

South Terminal - $26,460 9 

13. Tenant Improvement: 
World Airways Passenger 
Facility - North Terminal 

T-3100 - $330,000 86-0083 9 

14. Tenant Improvement: 
Airport Hi 1 ton Lobby 
Renovation - Plot 2 - 

$550,000 - No Rental Credit 86-0084 9 

15. Request for Approval of 
Travel /Training for Airports 

Commission Representatives 86-0085 9 



CORRESPONDENCE: 10 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 10 

CLOSED SESSION: 



Minutes, Apri 1 15, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

April 15, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:10 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of April 15, 1986 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 86-0072 



Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that a number of people from the 
ground transportation industry were present to address the Airports 
Commission. He apologized for any inconvenience and explained that the 
Commission did not anticipate calendaring this item today. He said that 
there are a number of requests to calendar a ground transportation item by 
a number of representatives from that industry. He said staff and the 
Commission felt it would be prudent to schedule it on a day when Airport 
staff could make a presentation as well. The Commission has set a time of 
next Tuesday (April 22, 1986) at 8:00 a.m., place to be announced, for an 
informational session. He explained that the meeting cannot be hel d this 
Friday due to the Airport's public notice requirements. In addition, 
Commissioner Fleishell will be out of town this Friday. Mr. Turpen 
encouraged people to either call the Commission Secretary later in the 
week to find out the location of the meeting or check the San Francisco 
Progress , the City's offical paper, for public notices to determine the 
location. 



Minutes, April 15, 1986, Page 3 



D. SPECIAL ITEM: 

The following item was unanimously adopted by the Commission. A court 
reporters transcript of this item is attached. 

1. Petition of Southern Air Transport on Behalf of Burlington Air 
Freight, Inc., for Waiver of Airports Commission Regulations and 
Applicable Air Operations Bulletins to Permit Operation of the Boeing 
707-300C Aircraft at San Francisco International Airport 

No. 86-0073 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was put over. 

2. Bid Call - Contract No. 1667: 
Car Wash Faci 1 i ties 
Airport Maintenance Base 

Resolution approving the scope, budget 
and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1667, and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 
The purpose of this contract is to 
install an automatic, drive-through 
vehicle wash facilities at Airport 
Maintenance Base. Contract time is 
100 calendar days . 

Mr. Turpen explained that presently we send personnel out to have the 
vehicles washed on a rotating basis. He said that although staff 
recognized the Commission's sensitivity to this issue it is felt that 
a car wash facility on the Airport is still the more economical way 
to go. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the wages, fringe benefits and mainte- 
nance of the equipment were taken into consideration against what it 
currently costs the Airport in time to drive off-Airport to a car 
wash. He said he has not seen a breakdown of the figures. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director, Facilities, Operations and Mainte- 
nance, responded that staff took those things into consideration. He 
said that staff also contacted companies with large vehicle fleets, 
like PG&E, the telephone company, and Chevron and they all generally 
acknowledge that the cutoff point is somewhere between 50 and 75 
vehicles; beyond that you lose money by either washing the vehicles 
by hand or by sending employees out to have it done. He said that in 
our case we would have 174 vehicles that would be able to use this 
car wash. 



Minutes, April 15, 1986, Page 4 



Commissioner Goosby asked if all of these vehicles belonged to the 
Airport. 

Mr. Bouey responded that they did. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that after Commissioner Bernstein raised 
the question a couple weeks ago, he looked into the matter and 
discovered that Hertz has a car wash and would wash all of our cars 
for $1,000 a month, which is less than the interest on $81,000. He 
said that he owned a car wash at 3rd & Montgomery in Santa Rosa 18 
years ago and learned about the high maintenance involved in operat- 
ing such a facility. He said that someone would be needed full time 
to maintain it and the cost of maintenance is unbelievable. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she looked into it after the 
meeting as she had raised the issue and one of the things she 
discovered was there is a problem because of the oversize nature of 
the vehicles. She felt that could create a problem with Hertz. 

Mr. Bouey said that there are actually a couple factors. One is the 
waiting time; there are certain times Hertz would like us to use the 
facility and those times may not always be convenient to the Airport. 
He did feel, however, that we could work around that problem. The 
second problem is that many of the Airport vehicles have lights and 
horns and Hertz won't be responsible for them. He said that in 
addition to that, a great number of these vehicles are pickup trucks 
and Hertz does not want that type of vehicle going through their 
facility. He said that what we would wind up getting is a mixed bag 
and he did not feel that would be very efficient. He said that staff 
has factored the maintenance into the cost. Mr. Bouey said sending a 
police officer off-Airport is not cost effective when you consider 
their wages and fringe benefits. He said this is the Commission's 
decison. The Airport has operated 30-40 years this way and can 
continue for another 30-40 years. Staff will try to cut the best 
deal it can. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how much it currently costs and what it 
will cost if this is adopted. 

Mr. Bouey responded that to send a police officer off -Airport to wash 
a car would cost approximately $30.00 for the car and the officer's 

time. 

Commissioner Goosby said he was referring to the total yearly cost. 
He wanted to know if it was cost effective to spend $81,000 to build 

thi s faci 1 i ty. 

Mr. Bouey suggested putting the item over again and staff will work 
out some numbers and provide them to the Commission prior to the next 

meeting. 

Commissioner Fleishell wondered why a maintenance person couldn't 
take cars to the car wash rather than using uniformed officers. 

Mr. Bouey responded that he would not send a police officer but that 
is the current practice. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it would be advisable to try it for a 
month or two. 

Mr. Bouey said he did not have any problem with that. 



Minutes, Apri 1 15, 1986, Page 5 



Commissioner Goosby said that if Hertz made us wait until 12:00 
midnight to get our cars washed it would be rather inconvenient. 

Commissioner Flei shell added that there are three companies at the 
Airport. If there's a will there's a way. 

Mr. Bouey said that staff prepared a cost breakdown on how much water 
we use versus going off-Airport but felt Commissioner Bernstein had a 
good suggestion. He said he would see what kind of deal staff can 
work out with Hertz, Avis, and National. If staff can't work out 
something that's suitable or cost effective the matter will be 
brought back to the Commission. 

Commissioner Tsourgarakis suggested that staff should find out if the 
airlines would use it and sell the service to them. 

Commissioner Bernstein argued that we would then be getting into a 
business and we will have insurance problems. 



The following items were uanimously adopted. 

3. Termination of Lease: 
Leather Care - SFO 

No. 86-0074 Resolution terminating South Terminal 

Shoeshine Lease (Res. 85-0332) issued 
to Leather Care - SFO. 



4. Authorization for Pre-Bid Conference: 

South Terminal and International Terminal Shoeshine Services. 

No. 86-0075 

Mr. Turpen said that the items are self-explanatory. Item 3 talks 
about the termination of Leather Care's lease due to their failure to 
provide a performance bond. Item 4 requests the Commission's author- 
ization for staff to conduct a prebid conference for the shoeshine 
facilities in the Central and South Terminals. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if staff will seek a reaction on the owner/ 
operator requirement and if that requirement was in place in other 
concessions at the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it is included in the principal concession. 
He added that it was not included in the current lease as the idea 
came up after the pre-bid conference. 

Commissioner Goosby said he would be interested in reactions to this 
from the pre-bid conference. 

Mr. Turpen asked if the Commission wanted it to go out as one bid or 
if they preferred to have separate bids for the International and 
South Terminals. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt this was a good opportunity to put two 
people in business instead of one. 



Minutes, April 15, 1986, Page 6 



Commissioner F1 e i she 1 1 agreed. He added that a month ago he found 
out that when this item is bid and the contract is awarded, the 
winning bidder turns around and hires an independent contractor who 
is paid a fee for shining shoes. He did not think the Airport should 
be in that kind of business. He felt that the winning bidder should 
be required to have employees, pay withholding, and give them the 
protection of insurance that employees should have. 

Commissioner Goosby said he discovered that was the method of opera- 
tion two or three years ago. 

Commissioner Fleishell suggested to Ms. Gittens that this go out on a 
permit basis to those people who shine shoes. 



Authorization to Award the Lease of Full Service Baggage Storage 
Concession to Travel Central, Inc. 

No. 86-0076 



Renewal Option for Lease of Entertainment Center/Video Game Room in 
the North Terminal . 

No. 86-0077 Resolution authorizing the first of 

two one-year options of the Lease of 
Entertainment Center/Video Game Room 
in the North Terminal . 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that they are 207» over their minimum 
and are going to be putting in some new machines. 



Public Parking Agreement - One Year Extension 

No. 86-0078 Resolution approving one-year 

extension of "Operating Agreement for 
Public Automobile Parking Facilities 
at San Francisco International 
Airport" to Airport Parking Management. 



Award of Airport Contract No. 1568R: 
Paving the Center Area of the Garage 

No. 86-0079 Resolution awarding Airport Contract 

No. 1568R to Ghilotti Bros., Inc. in 
the amount of $199,776.00. 

Five bids were received on March 24, 
1986, with the amounts ranging from 
$199,776.00 to $238,171 .00. 

Mr. Turpen said that a couple of years ago when staff presented the 
Commission with a five year plan it was suggested that the center of 
the garage be used as an interim taxi staging area. The reasons 
being that he wanted the taxis out of the garage and separated from 
the revenue control system. He said that this would permit us to do 
that. 



Minutes, April 15, 1986, Page 7 



Commissioner Goosby asked if that area is still open and if the 
problem of fumes has been solved. He asked if this will include an 
area for a coffee machine and if the catering truck was working out. 

Mr. Sheldon Fein, Landside Operations, responded that there is a 
catering truck in that area from 6:00 a.m. to midnight and the taxi 
drivers are very happy. 

Mr. Turpen said that there are no problems with fumes. He explained 
that every six months tests for exhaust are done in the garage. He 
still felt that moving the taxicabs out of the garage is a better 
measure all the way around, not only for the people who use the 
garage but the taxi industry itself. 



Charter Amendment Proposal for Exemption of Deputy Chief, Airport 
Pol ice. 

No. 86-0080 Resolution to approve language for a 

Chater Amendment that would exempt the 
Deputy Cheif, Airport Police from the 
Civil Service provisions of the 
Charter. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if this would come under Proposition D. 

Mr. Turpen responded that this is a separate amendment. He explained 
that this asks the Board of Supervisors to place a proposition on the 
November ballot exempting the position of Airports Deputy Police 
Chief. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the Airport Deputy Police Chief position 
essentially would be treated in the same manner as the Airport Deputy 
Director positions. In this instance, the Deputy Chief would be 
appointed by the Chief, with the concurrence of the Airport Director 
and the Commission. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how many exempt positions there would be at 
the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there are eight exempt positions, including 
the Airport Director, four Deputies, Bureau Chiefs and the Commission 
Secretary. He said he would double check the number. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

With the exception of Item #12, which was put over, the following items 
were unanimously adopted: 

10. Declaration of Emergency: 
Roof Drainage Work 
International Terminal 

No. 86-0081 Declaration of emergency to re-slope 

the roof and install new rain water 
drainage system in the International 
Terminal. New drainage stystem will 



Minutes, April 15, 1986, Page 8 



replace existing 32-year old drain 
pipes inside the original Central 
Terminal. Work is to be done 
immediately to stop water damage to 
the public and tenant areas below. 
$47,000. 



11. Airport Contract No. 1585R: 

Emergency Security Fencing Repair (1985-86) 
Type II Contract Modification 

86-0082 Resolution approving contract 

modification to extend time of 
completion for an additional 12 months 

This contract provides for fence 
repair service on an as-needed basis. 



12. Resolution Approving Modification No. 2 to Marquis/Wong & Brocchini's 
Professional Services Contract for Additional Work Related to the 
Reconstruction of the South Terminal - $26,460. 



Tenant Improvement: 

World Airways Passenger Facility - North Terminal 

T-3100 - $330,000 

No. 86-0083 



14. Tenant Improvement: 

Airport Hilton Lobby Renovation 
Plot 2 - $550,000 - No Rental Credit 

86-0084 



15. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives . 

86-0085 



Commissioner Goosby asked why World Airways is moving their operation 
out of Oakland. He said he understood they are keeping their 
headquarters there. 

Mr. Turpen responded that their passenger load factors in San 
Francisco are significantly higher than they were at Oakland. 

Commissioner Fleishell added that they have connecting flights here 
that they did not have in Oakland. 



Minutes, Apri 1 15, 1986, Page 9 



Mr. Turpen said that they get a lot of feed and a lot more 
passengers. He said that SFO is larger and offers a greater market 
from which to draw. He added that World has been much more 
successful in attracting passengers at SFO. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if anything has been done about the 
crowding problem they have created at the ticket counters. He 
suggested that the area should be roped off in order to maintain an 
ai sleway. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he did not know. He said that World is 
moving to the North Terminal on the 25th of this month and that 
should alleviate the problem. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he also came across an item about an 
electrician who turned the electric fan on the transformer, costing 
the Airport $60,000-$70,000. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airport General Counsel, reminded Commissioner 
Fleishell that that is the subject of closed session item. 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 

* * * 

L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m. to go into closed session. 



< ■ -y. 

■*f«*'t /,(.£. £ //< -«''•■ ■ 

Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, April 15, 1986, Page 10 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 



MEETING OF THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



0O0 



SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL, ROOM 282 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



Tuesday, April 15, 1986, 9:00 a.m. 



oOo 



Taken Before CHARLOTTE CERVANTEZ, Notary Public 

County of Alameda, State of California 

C.S.R. LICENSE No. 4486 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 

20993 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 222 

Hayward, California 94541 



^dtpdc Uim 4R1-Rfin9 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS 



HONORABLE MORRIS BERNSTEIN, President 
HONORABLE J. EDWARD FLEI SHELL, Vice-President 

HONORABLE DR. Z.L. GOOSBY, Commissioner 
HONORABLE ATHENA T SO UGARAKIS , Commissioner 



LOUIS A. TURPEN, Director of Airports 

DONALD GARIBALDI, Airport General Counsel 

JEAN CARAMATTI, Airports Commission Secretary 



0O0 



REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 

"Petition of Southern Air Transport on Behalf of 
Burlington Air Freight, Inc. for Waiver of Airports 
Commission Regulations and Applicable Air Operations 
Bulletins to Permit Operation of the Boeing 707-300C 
Aircraft at San Francisco International Airport." 



Tuesday, April 15, 1986 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



£*L2£eed_ings 

MS. CARAMATTI: Item one. 

MR. TURPEN: Item one is the Petition of Burlington 
Northern Air Freight, actually Southern Air Transport on behalf 
of Burlington Northern Air Freight, for a waiver of Airports 
Commission regulations and applicable air operations bulletins 
to permit operation of the Boeing 707-300C aircraft at 
San Francisco International Airport. 

It is my recommendation and contention — It's my 
recommendation that the petition for waiver be denied, based on 
the fact that the Q-707 will be if not one of the noisiest, thee 
noisiest aircraft operating out of San Francisco International. 

As the Commission has heard in prior testimony, the 
aircraft certification was achieved using three mechanisms; one 
was sound insulating material to surround the engines, the 
second was a weight reduction, and the third was a power 
cutback. Experienced pilots have testified, and Southern Air 
Transport in their most recent correspondence admits, that the 
protocol used in the test situation would not be applicable or 
appropriate to San Francisco International. 

We therefore suspect and believe that upon departure 
the Q-707 would have to use full takeoff thrust. That full 
takeoff thrust will add measurably to the noise level of the 
aircraft, as much in our opinion as eight to ten E.P.N.D.B., 
effective perceived noise. 

This increase makes this aircraft the noisiest, 
according to our calculations, at San Francisco International 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



Airport. It would generate in excess of 110 E.P.N.D.B., which 
places it above the major aircraft that the F.A.A. states is in 
the inventory, which is the 747. 

We have done comparisons of the 22 noisiest aircraft 
in the inventory, for full thrust noise levels, and found the 
707 to be at the top of that list, even at a reduced weight. 

DR. GOOSBY: Throttle. You want to mention the 
throttle, please? 

MR. TURPEN: ... with a full throttle, but at 
reduced weight it would still be at the top of the list. 

We have done exhaustive research on the number of 
those top 22 noisiest airplanes that operate at San Francisco 
International and find that we only have three and a half 
operations by those 22 noisiest aircraft at the airport daily. 
Allowing the Q-707 to operate would increase that by 33 percent, 
and setting the precedent of the Q-707 operation would then 
allow the operation of two other companies that have petitioned 
the airport for use of this aircraft, and increase by 100 
percent the operation of the noisiest aircraft at the airport. 

We think that's inconsistent with the Commission's 
overall noise policy, inconsistent with the direction that it 
would take and that we have adopted in trying to reduce overall 
noise in our aircraft fleet. We see it at reversing the trend 
of narrowing our noise contour area, and in fact would enlarge 
it; and for all of these reasons, and many more set before you 
in the public hearing, I would recommend that we deny the waiver 
of Burlington Northern. 

I have talked to Burlington Northern's attorneys, I 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



have told them that any further evidence they can offer would 
most certainly be passed on to the Commission and evaluated, you 
know, for its merit, but at this time no further information has 
been offered which would cause me to change my recommendation to 
you. 

DR. GOOSBY: And they're aware of the throttle 
question, as to when they compare themselves with other aircraft 
who use the airport, who operate in that area but at reduced — 
but at full throttle, that they still don't exceed our noise. 
That has been explained to them. 

MR. TURPEN: I have met Mr. Johnston, their 
attorney, last Friday for approximately one hour, and we had 
that very conversation. I have explained to him exactly what 
our situation is, exactly what our concerns are. He feels that 
there -- 

He has not offered any evidence at this point which 
would cause us to change our mind. As a matter of fact, as I 
explained to Mr. Simpson, their very own noise expert, when 
questioned by staff, confirmed the information that we had -- 
confirmed our feelings on the noisiness of the aircraft. 

As a matter of fact, in conversations with the 
F.A.A. they agreed that the aircraft would at full throttle be a 
noisy aircraft; and that would be the setting, if you will; the 
setting of a noisy aircraft as the standard by which we judge 
all future entrants is not consistent with the approach the 
Commission and staff has taken with respect to noise. 

MR. FLEISHELL: I'll make a motion that we reject 
the application for variance, but I'd like to add a strong 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



suggestion that if the Commission adopts that . recommendation, 
that we meet with their attorneys and clear up what seems to be 
some confusion about full throttle versus cutback throttle. 

I called Mr. Garabaldi yesterday and asked him some 
questions based upon the most recent letter from Mr. Simpson. 
He was unable to answer those questions and referred me to 
Mr. Magee, who then referred me to Morris & Forrester. Then I 
got a call from Morris & Forrester in Washington, and then later 
I got a call from Mr. Simpson. Until 10:30 last night there 
were a series of at least seven phone calls. I raised that 
precise question, are we talking about apples and oranges, or 
apples and apples; and at 10:30 last night he, Simpson, called 
me back after talking with TRACOR and sending people down to 
TRACOR last evening. 

He gave me full throttle numbers: At 290,000 it was 
105.5, at 305,000 it was 106.5, and at 322,300 it was 107.8. I 
think it's important that somewhere we have a piece of paper in 
the record that shows that we're talking full throttle. When 
you say "full throttle," I think you also you have to realize 
that the F.A.A. cannot certify aircraft differently for each 
airport. They use a standard in known conditions, flat land, 
and obviously each area suffers a lesser or greater impact from 
that particular aircraft. 

But I'd like to make sure that we're talking about 
full throttle all the way up, because most planes don't fly that 
way. You have full throttle until you get your wings. off, and 
you get up 1000 feet and then you back it off anyway. All 
aircraft fly that way, including all the airplanes at our 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



airport now. So, I think we ought to make sure we're talking 
about the same thing. 

So far the lawyers just talk about it would produce 
such and such a decibel, and they don't use the full throttle, 
and what precisely full throttle means. I think it's important 
that we all know that. It took five phone calls, or six or 
whatever it was, to kind of get it nailed down, and I'm not sure 
it's nailed down yet. 

MR. TURPEN: First of all, I think your suggestion 
is a valuable one, and I support it. If Burlington Northern 
comes back to this Commission with information that indicates 
that that aircraft can operate in a quieter fashion, then it 
would be appropriate for the Commission to reconsider their 
denial of the waiver. 

However, I have to point out to the Commission that 
we have gone to TRACOR's very own study, or TRACOR's very own 
paper, which was presented to a noise symposium in July of 1985 
in which they cite the full power takeoff with the Q, the Q 
models, at an excess of 110 E.P.N.D.B. We have checked the 
weights, checked the reduced weight impact on that number, and 
found it not to be as significant as the figures you would 
suggest, or the figures that you have would suggest. 

MR. FLEI SHELL: Stopping there: Who made the check? 
Who made those calculations that you've just referred to? 

MR. TURPEN: The calculations were made through 
Mr. Harold James of our office and Mr. Hugh Perry, who is a 
noise consultant and also employed by... is it TRACOR? 

MR. PERRY: And Chuck Casserly, who is the 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



8 

vice-president of engineering, that states it's 110.8 decibels 
on takeoff. 

MR. TURPEN: We also, Commissioner, dug out an old 
F. A. A. -sponsored study with Boeing on the possibility of 
retrofitting the 707 to meet the anticipated 1985 noise 
criteria; and that paper suggested as well that the maximum 
attenuation could be — was approximately 2.1 decibels by use of 
the hush kit, and at full power still left the aircraft in 
excess of 110 E.P.N.D.B. 

Both of these were brought to Mr. Simpson's 
attention on Friday. He expressed ignorance of either of these 
papers or studies and was surprised, frankly, that a study had 
been done as early as 1974 using all the same materials that 
Shannon/TRACOR has used in the development of their hush kit. 
This is not to say that at some future time — 

It's not to say that we will not stand corrected if 
in fact our information is wrong, but thus far there appears to 
be overwhelming information -- not only from TRACOR, itself, who 
were deeply and actively involved in the development of this 
hush hit, but from the F.A.A.'s Boeing in testing vertually 
identical hush kit in in 1974 — that would indicate that this 
will be a noisy aircraft. 

I must point out to the Commission this: That out 
of 545 operations a day at the airport, there are three and a 
half on the average today that exceed 105 E.P.N.D.B. on takeoff 
at full throttle, according to the F.A.A. 

This aircraft, were we to use the figures which 
Commissioner Fleishell received yesterday, would be the third 



o*v »nu« rniiDT DPPfiRTKR.q (415) 481-8009 



noisiest airplane operating at this airport. Were we to use the 
figures that we've gleaned from the TRACOR/F. A. A. documentation, 
it would make it the noisiest airplane operating at this 
airport . 

In any event, out of 545 operations, this aircraft 
will place either number one or number three, depending on the 
figures, in the noise spectrum. Now, that's significant to us, 
especially when there are other operators, two to three others, 
who have asked and petitioned for rights into San Francisco 
using the very same aircraft. 

There are current retrofits going on, more of these 
aircraft will be coming back into the inventory, and what we 
could face then is a specter of increasing, if you will, that 
number of noisiest aircraft from three to six to 12 to 20 to 25, 
and each of those can contribute to our noise impact area. 
That's a concern. 

If this aircraft can fall below that envelope and 
fall into the middle range -- and I'm prepared to objectively 
look at that -- then I think a significant objection on our part 
would be removed. At this point we do not see the aircraft as 
being compatible. We see a viable alternative in Oakland, the 
aircraft has been using Oakland since December 4, and therefor 
my recommendation to you. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I'll second the motion and — 

DR. GOOSBY: Moved and seconded. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: What? 

DR. GOOSBY: It's been moved and seconded. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Any other comment? 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



10 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: My strongest feeling is when it's 
that close, that the notion of the precedent that's established 
has to override. You know, you just don't want to step 
backwards, that's all. I think there's been a lot of effort at 
the airport to reduce, then we face litigation. I think we 
should just go with it. 

DR. GOOSBY: Okay. All right, question? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Call the roll, please. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Burnstein? 

THE WITNESS: Yes. 



MS. CARAMATTI 
MR. FLEISHELL 
MS. CARAMATTI 



Commissioner Fleishell? 

Yes. 

Commissioner Goosby? 
DR. GOOSBY: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Tsougarakis? 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yes. 
(Reported proceedings adjourned at 9:42 a.m.) 



0O0 



Rnv arfa COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

) ss . 
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ) 

I, the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State of 
California, hereby certify that the foregoing proceeding was 
taken at the time and place herein stated; that the proceeding 
was reported by me, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and 
disinterested person, and was thereafter transcribed under my 
direction into typewriting; that the foregoing is a full, 
complete and true record of said reported proceeding. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney 
for either or any of the parties in the foregoing proceeding, 
nor am I in any way interested in the outcome of the cause named 
herein . 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 
affixed my seal this 28th day of April 1986. 



$ ^— ^ OFFICIAL SEAL (f 

^/^\ CHARLOTTE CERVANTEZ » 

StCT'- ■' N0TA " Y PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA^ 

¥ \5-^/ / CO JNTV OF ALAMEDA & 

$ f.!y CsmiBissiuii Expires Kov. 1 3, 1 987 ! 



A 



C r ^f / CsyA.t' cz^ 5l 



CHARLOTTE CERVANTEZ 

CSR #4486 -^Notary Public 

State of California 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 






SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

J UN 3 1986 

SAN FKANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



MINUTES 



MAY 6, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

May 6, 1986 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



PAGE 



A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
E. 



CALL TO ORDER: 



ROLL CALL: 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Report on the Progress of the 
1-380 Highway Construction 
Program 

Report on West of Bayshore 



86-0088 



4-5 

5-6 



F. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 
Deputy Chief Position 



6-7 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Resolution Modifying Lease and 
Use Agreement No. 82-0126 - 
United Air Lines, Inc. 



86-0089 



Award of Two Professional 
Services Agreements: 

1) Daniel, Mann, Johnson & 
Mendenhall - Consultant for 
the Preparation of an Airport 
Master Plan - $450,000; 86-0090 

2) Jefferson Associates, Inc. 
Consultant for the Preparation 
of an Environmental Impact 
Report for the Master Plan - 
$100,000. 86-0091 

Amendment to Lease No. 85-0108, 
Associated Limousine Operators 
of San Franci sco 



7-10 



10-12 



6. Month-to-Month Hold Over of 

Personalizing Shop Lease 86-0092 12 

7. Resolution Approving Assignment 
of Leases from Pacific Southwest 
Airlines to Continental Air Lines, 

Inc. 86-0093 13 

8. Resolution Approving Modification 
of Continental Air Lines, Inc.'s 

Leases 86-0094 13 

9. Award of Contract No. 1692: 
Office Relocations - 3rd Floor, 

North Terminal 86-0095 13-14 

10. Award of Contract No. 1677: 
Demolition of Interior Finishes 

4th Floor, International 14 

Terminal 86-0096 17-18 

11. A0CI Membership 86-0097 15 

12. Charter Amendment Proposal for 

Exempt Appointment of Curators 16-17 



Airport/Art Joint Committee 17 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

13. Declaration of Emergency: 
Pavement Repair - Runway 10L- 

28R and 1L-19R Intersection 86-0098 18 

14. Type II Modifications for Two 

South Terminal Complex 86-0099 
Construction Contracts 86-0100 18 

15. Rental Credit - Associated 
Limousine Operators of San 

Francisco 86-0101 18 

16. Rental Credit for Dias 

Airport Barber Shop 86-0102 18 

17. Tenant Improvement: 
UAL-M0C Building 74 - 
Professional Employment 
Office - T-3109 - $80,000 - 

No Cost to City 86-0103 19 

18. Tenant Improvement: 
Chevron Aviation Fuel Line 
Modification - Plots 24 
and 22 - T-3105 - $80,000 - 

No Cost to City 86-0104 19 



Minutes, fay 6, 1986, Page 2 



19. Tenant Improvement: 

PG&E Gas Main Replacement at 

Airport Entrance - T-3110 - 

$45,000 - No Cost to City 86-0105 19 

20. Airport Contract No. 1728: 
Repair of Timber Trestle at 
Drainage Pumping Station 

No. 2 86-0106 19 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

21. Hearing Regarding Increase in 

Outdoor Aircraft Storage Rates 19-20 

22. Hearing Regarding Proposed 
Reduction in the Garage Daily 

Parking Rate 19-20 



CORRESPONDENCE: 20 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 20 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

May 6, 1986 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



ROLL CALL: 
Present: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z.L. Goosby 

Athena Tsougarakis 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of March 18, 1986 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 86-0088 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
86-0086 adopting the Memorandum of 
Understanding between United Airlines 
and the City and County of San 
Francisco, and 86-0087 regarding 
Modification No. 3 to the Agreement 
with Morrison and Foerster at the 
Closed Session of April 15, 1986. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Report on the Progress of the 1-380 Highway Construction Program 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that the 1-380 
construction program is on schedule, and ahead of schedule in some 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 4 



elements. The two-lane, southbound connector from highway 101 onto 
the Airport has been opened, however there is currently only a one- 
lane access to the connector from 101. He explained that this was 
because the second lane access will come from highway 380 when the 
at-grade connection is made. He said that CalTrans has been very 
cooperative in promoting a smooth traffic flow at the Airport and 
that any congestion is not a result of this project as much as it is 
the conditions and demands placed on the Airport. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked when the second lane is expected to 
open and if the work south of the ramp was part of that project. 

Mr. Sheldon Fein, Landside Operations, responded that it will open in 
about a year. He said that the entire project should be completed by 
the spring of 1987. He explained that there are three or four 
different projects that have staggered completion dates. 

Commissioner Goosby said he thought that the entrance to the West of 
Bayshore property would be later than that. 

Mr. Fein responded that those other portions are not in the 
construction program. He said that nothing can be done until the 
environmental approvals are received to use the West of Bayshore. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the channel has been redirected and 
asked if that will effect future development of a rental car parking 
area. 

Mr. Fein responded that the relocation of the channel has already 
been accomplished and that staff reveiwed the plans and had input on 
the relocation. He said that that particular area was primarily 
marsh land and was not designated for major use by the Airport. 



Report on West of Bayshore 

Mr. Turpen said that several months ago Dean Macris, Director of City 
Planning, asked for information for himself and Wally Wortman 
(Director of Real Estate) on the West of Bayshore property, as well 
as his views on how that property could be utilized for Airport 
purposes. He said that basic information on the West of Bayshore was 
provided as well as its potential for parking. 

Mr. Turpen said that Mr. Wortman was charged with taking a look at 
how to develop the West of Bayshore property and the cost of develop- 
ing it for commercial use. He added that the numbers in Chuck 
Foerster's letter to Mayor Feinstein were developed by the Department 
of Real Estate; they do not reflect any numbers developed by the 
Airport staff. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she received a copy of that letter 
which indicated that the property could be commercially developed for 
$1 1 7— mi 1 1 i on or $52-mi 1 1 ion and she did not understand why the big 
difference. 

Mr. Turpen said that one of the problems Real Estate saw in the 

commercial development of that property was the PG&E towers which cut 

through the property. He said there was talk of relocating those 
power lines underground. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the difference then was in using it 
for Airport use as opposed to other commercial development. 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 5 



Mr. Turpen said that was correct. He added that if the area is used 
for parking we would be talking about land fill, paving and a 
relatively simple construction program. He said that their concern 
was that because of the soil conditions they would either be talking 
about incredible amounts of fill or putting everything on piles which 
would significantly increase the cost. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it would be possible to get a 
developer to develop it for himself. 

Mr. Turpen said that there was some consideration given to that 
option. He said that the property could be sold but we would not get 
much for it due to the lack of access. He said that Airport staff 
told the City what it could make if the property was used for rent-a- 
cars and long term parking but was not privy to the development 
analysis. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that when the Airport negotiated with the 
airlines to transfer this property from the Airport to the City we 
told them the rent-a-car operation would not be moved. 

Mr. Turpen told Commissioner Fleishell that he was right about the 
basic philosophy at that time. He said that since that time the 
rent-a-car companies have approached staff and said they cannot 
operate at the Airport in a constrained land condition on a long-term 
basis. The companies also asked staff to look at the possibility of 
reducing their percentage to the Airport because of their cost 
problems. He said that the West of Bayshore property was suggested 
to the rent-a-car companies in 1982. At that point staff also talked 
to TWA, United, Delta and American about utilization of that property 
for Airport parking and rent-a-cars. He said that their reaction was 
that it would be acceptable as long as it was included as part of 
Airport property, it was included in the landside cost center, and, 
that 15 percent of revenues go to the City only. He said that these 
conditions were transmitted to the Director of Planning and the 
Mayor's Task Force. He said they have been explained and are clearly 
understood. Mr. Turpen said that this was consistant with the 
original thinking and they have all agreed to make that adjustment 
provided that the revenues aren't moved off-Airport. Mr. Turpen said 
that the airlines are actually favorably disposed to this because 
they feel we can attract some of the off-Airport long term parking, 
thereby increasing the Airport's revenue and lowering the landing 
fees. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the land surrounding that property 
belonged to San Bruno. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there is a small piece of that property 
that is within San Bruno's city limits; the majority of the land is 
within the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. 

Mr. Turpen said he will return to the Commission with a task list and 
lay out in detail what the next steps are and how staff intends to 
proceed. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fleishell said that at the last meeting the Commission voted 
to place a proposal on the ballot to make the Deputy Chief an appointive 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 6 



position rather than a Civil Service position. He said he received a call 
on Friday and was told that an exam was being held for the position. He 
said that the caller felt this was being rigged to suit one individual. 

Mr. Turpen said that the matter would probably not go forward. He said 
that after the Commission gave its approval it was sent to the Mayor's 
Office at which time we were informed that it should not be placed on the 
ballot. Staff is moving forward with the examination. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the Mayor had given a reason. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he has not had an opportunity to follow up on it. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if, as a matter of procedure, we should clear 
these things with the Mayor's Office before the Commission votes. 

Mr. Turpen said he would be happy to do it either way but he would hate to 
approach the Mayor first for her approval as he felt it would preempt the 
Commission and put them in the potential position of not agreeing with her. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the Mayor's Office would send a letter 
to the Commission explaining why she decided to overrule their decision. 

Mr. Turpen said he would be happy to ask the Mayor for such a letter. 

Comissioner Goosby felt it might be because of a potential effect on 
Proposition D. 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 

3. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement - United Air Lines, Inc 

No. 86-0089 Resolution modifying Lease and Use 

Agreement No. 82-0126 - United Air 
Lines, Inc. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that United Air Lines moved into the 
International Terminal on May 1 and has been operating their inter- 
national flights out of that terminal since that date. This item 
speaks to the addition of the International Terminal and holdroom 
space, consistent with the letter agreement between United and the 
Airport. He said that this matter is also before United's Board of 
Directors and he believes this is a $20,000,000 decision for them. 



The following item was adopted by a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Bernstein 
casting the dissenting vote. 

4. Award of Two Professional Services Agreements: 

1) Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, Consultant for the 
Preparation of an Airport Master Plan - $450,000; 

2) Jefferson Associates, Inc., Consultant for the 
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the 
Airport Master Plan - $100,000. 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 7 



No. 86-0090 Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall 

No. 86-0091 will be responsible to produce a 

Master Plan which will reflect the 
highest and best use of the Airport's 
properties, accompanied by forecasts 
and possible alternative solutions to 
satisfy the Airport's needs for the 
next 15 years. Jefferson will work 
closely with Airport Master Plan con- 
sultant in the preparation and 
approval processing of the Environ- 
mental Impact Report. Duties will 
cover all phases of the environmental 
process, including the attendance of 
publ ic hearings. 

Mr. Turpen said that this item has already been before the Commission 
and hoped that staff has addressed their concerns. He said Jason 
Yuen is present to answer any additional questions the Commission 
might have. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was any land, other than the 
West of Bayshore property, that is not developed. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there is land in the North Field area by 
the Seaplane Harbor; near the Air Cal hangar and the American Air 
Lines superbay; and, some minor parcels near Mi librae; and, across 
Airport Boulevard, near highway 101, adjacent to the San Bruno 
interchange. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if staff had any ideas on how those 
parcels should be utilized in the near future. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there are plans for the West of Bayshore. 
He said that there is a problem with the area adjacent to highway 101 
in San Bruno in that it is in the clear zone and its uses are limited 
by the FAA due to aircraft flying over that area. He said that there 
are no immediate plans for the North Field area and the maintenance 
base area. 

Mr. Turpen said that the United States government is into a hydrogen 
fueling program and they have given out a substantial amount of money 
to four competitors to come up with a hyrdogen fueled aircraft. He 
said that hydrogen fueling is completely different from what is being 
done now and as a result some areas of the Airport will have to be 
identified and isolated for this type of activity. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff is looking at property in near-term needs 
as well as long-term possibilities and, more importantly, its exist- 
ing use, expecially in the cargo area. 

Commissioner Goosby said that staff will also have to address the 
fact that moving the rental cars will create a lot of space adjacent 
to the terminal buildings and what the most creative use for that 
space would be. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission must address the issue of vacant 
land and the issue of creating vacant land by making the current 
operation more efficient. He said there are 5500 acres, 3000 of 
which are under water. He added that the chances of the Airport 
recovering those submerged acres are remote. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the land currently being utilized is 
the result of a study. 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 8 



Mr. Turpen told Commissioner Bernstein that the terminal area is the 
result of a master plan study. He said there may have been a master 
plan in the 50's or 60's but it has long since been completed. 

Commissioner Bernstein argued that that master plan designed the 
Airport and asked why another master plan is needed to change that 
design. 

Mr. Turpen explained that we are not changing the design. He said 
that there are two issues that are being confused. There was a 
master plan for the terminal buildings and the garage called the 
Terminal Modernization Program which came out in 1968 or 1970. There 
has not been a master plan for the development of cargo areas for the 
efficient utilization of Airport property. Mr. Turpen reminded the 
Commission that long term leases were provided and those leases are 
now coming to an end. We have been able to induce people to move and 
free up other property so we now have an opportunity to set the stage 
for what we want to do in the future and guide the staff and the 
Commission when other leases come due. He felt this was a logical 
extension of what's been done in the terminals; the same will now be 
done for the rest of the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen said that as an operating philosophy we have not entered 
into any long term leases, with the exception of the terminal 
program. He said that if we enter into a lease it has a buy-out 
clause and an access clause. 

Commissioner Fleishell said it was his understanding that the law 
requires us to have a master plan and asked why we don't have one. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the FAA does require us to have a master 
plan. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
responded that we have an Airport lay-out plan that has been accepted 
by the FAA. He said that a master plan is required and ultimately we 
must have one but there are no deadlines or penalties. He said that 
if we do not proceed the government will eventually get us on Federal 
fundi ng. 

Mr. Turpen added that there are a lot of local communities who have 
expressed an interest in seeing our master plan. 

Commissioner Goosby said that it makes sense for a responsible City 
commission to seek the input of experts and that it would be 
ridiculous to even consider developing the Airport without that kind 
of expertise. 

Mr. Turpen added that the JAL lease was an example in that the 
Commission said at the time it would not approve any new cargo 
facilities without a master plan. He felt it was important to the 
Airport's relationship with the local communities and others to make 
it clear how we intend to develop the Airport and what our intentions 
are. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he would like this put over for two 
weeks. He said there were a few things he would like to look into 
before he could vote on this. He said he was not certain that we 
need a master plan when there is no intent on the Airport's part to 
do anything. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis argued that the point is that we don't know 
what to do, nor do we know if we should be doing anything. That is 
the purpose of a master plan. 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 9 



Mr. Turpen said that we have to have a master plan if we want to 
develop the West of Bayshore property. The longer the master plan is 
delayed the longer the development of the West of Bayshore is delayed. 

Commissioner Goosby said that decisions should not be made about the 
West of Bayshore until we have a comprehensive master plan. He 
thought it was ridiculous for the Commission to look at that kind of 
land and that kind of expenditure of time and money without having as 
much expertise built into the decision-making process as possible. 
He did not feel the master plan should be held up for another two 
weeks. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked what staff person would handle the West 
of Bayshore. 

Mr. Turpen responded that Jason Yuen would be responsible. He said 
that under Jason Yuen's direction we just completed a $1 00-mi 1 1 ion 
construction program. His division finished a $1 5-mi 1 1 ion Boarding 
Area ' E', a $40-mi 1 1 ion Boarding Area 'A', $1 00-mi 1 1 i on North 
Terminal, and completed the garage. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was a master plan for that and 
if some architects were involved. 

Mr. Turpen said that there was a master plan however it only included 
those areas; and, the Commission got rid of the architects. 

Mr. Turpen said that the West of Bayshore was one issue, the other 
issue is cargo. Cargo demands for the Pacific are growing dramati- 
cally and we do not have the ability in our current inefficient cargo 
set up to handle the future demands for cargo for the Pacific. That 
has to be addressed. 

Commissioner Goosby said he understood that Air France wants to 
operate out of SFO but is reluctant due to the lack of cargo 
faci 1 i ties. 

Mr. Turpen said there is a report that during the summer months cargo 
for the Pacific will be left on the ramp because we cannot process it 
and get it through. He said that Hong Kong has a single building 
which can process one-billion pounds of cargo; our entire Airport 
processes one-billion pounds of cargo. He thought it would be a 
mistake not to proceed with this. 

Commissioner Goosby suggested approving this item contingent on 
Commissioner Bernstein's concerns being addressed. 



The following item was put over. 

5. Amendment to Lease No. 85-0108, Associated Limousine Operators of San 
Francisco 

Resolution amending Associated 
Limousine Operators of San Francisco's 
Lease No. 85-0108, Section 8.02(c), 
Automobile Liability Insurance limits. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he opposed this and felt the Airport was 
taking advantage of the other bidders on this contract. 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 10 



Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, said 
that there were numerous discussions in the pre-bid conference and 
with the Commission. When the item was put out to bid staff pegged 
the insurance to PUC's announcement and she was confident that it was 
clear to all bidders. She said that the fact that PUC has changed 
back to $750,000 is causing us to recommend this change. She did not 
think it was sneaky or that it particularly favors one bidder. She 
said that any bidder would have received the same privilege. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that a $1 . 5-mi 1 1 ion insurance policy is 
not a lot of insurance, and $750,000 is nothing. 

Ms. Gittens pointed out that this is on the auto insurance and not 
the general 1 iabi 1 i ty. 

Commissioner Goosby said he had the same concerns that Commissioner 
Fleishell raised but if Mr. Garibaldi felt the Airport was not 
opening itself up for litigation he would go along with it. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airport General Counsel, said that he did not 
think the Commission was exposing itself but he could not guarantee 
that no one would sue. He did point out that the successful bidder 
bid $200,000 more that the next bidder. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said this was comparative bidding and they 
were all bidding on the same basis. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how Associated Limousine was doing. 

Ms. Gittens responded that Associated Limousine's contract just 
started at the end of March so she does not have much information on 
them, however she believed they were losing money. 

Mr. Turpen said that they have only been in operation one month and 
for that month they have paid the minimum. He explained that staff 
does not have a track record to indicate how they are doing. He said 
that the assumption is that they are not doing well since they paid 
the minimum. 

Ms. Gittens explained that Associated is on a flat rate of $427,000 a 
year. She said that they still owe the Airport reports and since it 
is so recent we don't have enough history to know how they are doing. 

Commissioner Bernstein agreed that $750,000 is not very high. 

Mr. Turpen thought that the problem was that when the lease documents 
were put together they stated that a bidder must have insurance that 
was satisfactory to what the California PUC required. 

Ms. Gittens said that at the time of the bid, PUC's change to 
$1 . 5-mi 1 1 ion was imminent and staff felt that by the time the lease 
was in effect the PUC limit would be $1 .5-mi 1 1 ion. She agreed that 
it should have been stated differently. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that if the language had been different 
he would not have had any concerns but with the current language he 
felt the bidders would have submitted entirely different bids. He 
did not feel this was fair to the bidders. 

Ms. Gittens said that if the PUC had raised the limit to $1 .5-mi 1 1 Ion 
she felt that the assigned risk pool, which Associated is insured 
with, would have been $1 .5-mi 11 ion but the industry standard would 
have been $750,000. 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 11 



Mr. Andrew Fenyes, Vice President and General Manager of Associated 
Limousine, said that his company spent five months trying to acquire 
insurance so it was not a matter of not wanting to or not being able 
to afford the insurance. He said that as of April 27, 1986 they had 
all the insurance they needed. He said his company has worked with 
four insurance brokers and they have been able to acquire a $750,000 
insurance policy. They have been advised by their broker that the 
law only requires $750,000. In the past they have been able to get 
additional umbrella coverage for up to as much as $2-mi 1 1 ion. He 
said that his company has been advised that this umbrella coverage is 
no longer available because many insurance companies will only insure 
up to the limit of the law and the law is what the PUC requires. He 
said that Associated has been operating at the Airport for the last 
three months and is doing as well as they expected to do in the 
initial stages of the operation. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the information he had was somewhat 

different. He said that the PUC figure is a minimum figure and that 

he knew of at least two companies that carry $20-mi 1 1 ion worth of 

insurance. He felt that PUC's minimum is not necessarily what we 

should require. He said that the minimum was arrived at through a 

lot of lobbying and political maneuvering and he felt it should stay 
the way it was bid. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how the difference in the amount of 
insurance effects the Airport's interests. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that in the event there is an accident which 
results in litigation there is that much more coverage for both the 
Airport and the operator. He said that typically in this kind of 
litigation if a public entity can be dragged in it will be. He said 
that this will provide us with coverage in the event we are found to 
have any 1 iabi 1 i ty at all. 

Mr. Turpen said that this item can be put over if the Commission 
wishes and it will give staff the opportunity to take another look at 
it. 

Commissioner Goosby said he would go along with what Mr. Turpen 
recommends . 

Commissioner Bernstein asked what Los Angeles Airport's criteria was. 

Mr. Turpen said he did not know but he could check on it if the 
Commission wished. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

6. Month-to-Month Hold Over of Personalizing Shop Lease 

No. 86-0092 Resolution approving a month-to-month 

hold over tenancy of the lease with 
Elson's for the Personalizing Shop in 
the North Terminal . 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 12 



Items 7 and 8 were called together. 

Resolution Approving Assignment of Leases from Pacific Southwest 
Airlines to Continental Air Lines, Inc. 

No. 86-0093 Resolution approving assignment of 

leases of Plots 10 and IOC with 
improvements from Pacific Southwest 
Airlines to Continental Air Lines, Inc 



8. Resolution Approving Modification of Continental Air Lines, Inc.'s 
Leases 

No. 86-0094 Resolution approving modification of 

Continental Air Lines, Inc.'s leases 
of Plots 10 and IOC. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if Continental decided to terminate their 
cargo handling operator could they sublease the space without first 
getting the Commission's approval. 

Mr. Turpen responded that if there is property involved the answer is 
yes. However, if Continental decides to go to a handling company to 
handle their cargo and retain the space then they do not need the 
Commission's permission. The Lease and Use Agreement provides that 
we will not interfere with their hiring of people. If, however, land 
is turned over in a sublease operation it must come before the 
Commi ssion. 



9. Award of Contract No. 1692: 

Office Relocations - 3rd Floor, North Terminal 

No. 86-0095 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1692 

to Echo West, Inc. in the amount of 
$151,962.00. 

Two bids were received on April 4, 
1986, in the amount of $151,962.00 and 
$174,152.00 

Mr. Turpen said that this space was above the ticket counters in the 
North Terminal. He said that currently Landside Operations is in the 
North Connector and Community Affairs is in the South Connector. 
They are both being moved to the North Terminal mezzanine in order to 
open up space in the International and South Terminals. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked why they were moving. 

Mr. Turpen responded that additional space is needed for the 
Community Affairs office in order to expand the noise abatement 
system. In addition, space was being opened up in the North 
Connector order to bring the Police Department together. He said it 
was simply pulling people together and providing for the needed space 
to expand some of our systems. 

Mr. Turpen explained that for years the Airport staff's needs have 
taken second and third place to the operation and development of the 
Airport. He said that this measure will get us over an interim 
period but it does not mean that he will not return to the Commission 
at a later date and recommend the construction of a separate facility 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 13 



to consolidate all Airport operations. He felt that at this point it 
makes sense, it is the prudent course to take and will satisfy our 
needs for the next three or four years. He said that most other 
airports have separate facilities for their staffs. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked why a facility could not be built on the 
land in question. 

Mr. Turpen responded that when the rent-a-cars are moved staff will 
take a look at that area for such a use. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the Commission has already 
approved the concept of creating space for the efficient operation of 
the Airport. She has a problem with the Commission saying no to this 
after it has already gone through three separate phases of approvals. 

Commissioners Goosby and Flei shell agreed that the concept has 
already been approved. 



10. Award of Contract No. 1677: 

Demolition of Interior Finishes 
4th Floor, International Terminal 

No. 86-0096 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1677 

to Echo West, Inc., in the amount of 
$122,977.00. 

Five bids were received on March 27, 
1986, with the amounts ranging from 
$122,997.00 to $202,187.00. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if this shouldn't wait until staff had a 
particular use in mind. 

Mr. Turpen said that the area in question is in such a state that it 
has to be cleared out. He said that United Air Lines has the right 
of first refusal on this space until July 1, 1986. Should United 
accept the space for their International Terminal VIP lounge it must 
be provided to them in reasonable condition. In the event United 
does not exercise their right of first refusal the Commission has 
then directed staff to examine the feasibility of a health club in 
that location. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis told Commissioner Bernstein that when this 
first came up she asked if some of the existing fixtures could be 
used for future purposes. She said she was told that it was not 
possible. 

Mr. Turpen added that this will be unfinished space rather than 
finished space. He explained that when the International Terminal 
was renovated, steel piles were driven through this space to support 
the new tower. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director, Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, said the space would be taken down to the studs. It 
would then be left for the tenant to improve at his own expense. Our 
responsibility is to provide an area that can be improved upon. 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 14 



AOCI Membership 

No. 86-0097 Resolution authorizing the Director of 

Airports to reinstate San Francisco 
International Airport's membership in 
the AOCI. 

Mr. Turpen explained that in 1983 the Airport Operators Council 
International (AOCI) leadership was promoting a policy which was 
inconsistent with our policies. He said they did not view San 
Francisco as part of the Pacific region and he felt that was 
counter-productive to what the City has been doing. He reminded the 
Commission that they authorized him to withdraw from the AOCI if, in 
fact, they did not amend their position. AOCI would not amend their 
position and in 1984 SFO withdrew from the organization. He said 
there has since been a change in the AOCI leadership; they have 
changed their by-laws and indicated that San Francisco and all West 
Coast airports are part of the Pacific region. Mr. Turpen felt it 
would be appropriate to rejoin the organization. He said that this 
would be on a year to year basis; that if the winds change in AOCI 
our continued association would have to be reexamined. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked what the Airport gets for their member- 
ship. 

Mr. Turpen responded that one of the things is that there is a lot of 
official inter-activity with people in the Pacific Basin. He said 
that we get certain reports and data from the AOCI in Washington and 
certain assistance with communicating airport matters to legislators 
in Washington. He said that most importantly, we are betting on the 
future. Mr. Turpen felt that we have an opportunity to assume more 
of a leadership role in the organization and can possibly direct its 
activities in a way that is more conducive not only to what we want 
in San Francisco but what a lot of other airports want as well. He 
said that our withdrawal from AOCI was, in great measure, responsible 
for an entire rethinking on the part of other airports. . .Kennedy, 
Miami, Honolul u. . .and these airports have joined with us in saying 
that we need something more from this organization. He said that 
Wally Abernathy of Oakland is President of AOCI for the next year so 
there are some real opportunities to make some beneficial changes. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that the AOCI is a minimally competent 
trade organization and when SFO pulled out it merely woke others up 
to the fact that they should also leave. He said that the legisla- 
tive information we get from AOCI is weeks old. That information is 
available by subscribing to the airline guide newsletter and would be 
received within three days. The Cost is $250 a year as opposed to 
$12,000. 

Mr. Turpen said that Commissioner Fleishell 's views were accurate in 
the past but we now have the opportunity to effect change. He argued 
that that change must come from within; you cannot stand on the side- 
lines and tell them they are doing it wrong. 

Mr. Turpen said this should be examined on a year-to-year basis and 
will come before the Commission for approval each year in the budget. 
He felt that it would be appropriate at this time to rejoin the 
organization to see if we can effect some changes and make it respon- 
sive to what we think is important and how it should be operated. He 
felt that Commissioner Fleishell 's points were well taken and that 
there are a lot of people who now view AOCI in that same light and 
are prepared to make a change. 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 15 



The following item was removed from the calendar. 

12. Charter Amendment Proposal for Exempt Appointment of Curators 

Resolution to approve language for a 
Charter Amendment that would exempt 
all Curators from the Civil Service 
provisions of the Charter. Curators 
at the Fine Arts Museums are currently 
exempt. 

Ms. Gittens explained that this is a separate issue from the Police. 
She said that the Art Commission just approved their version of this 
item yesterday. If the Commission approves it today it will go to 
the Mayor for her approval. Ms. Gittens did not know how the Mayor 
felt about it. 

Commissioner Goosby thought that the curator positions were exempt. 

Ms. Gittens responded that only the top curator was exempt. She 
asked Jim Ilnicki, Director of Airport personnel, to respond. 

Mr. Ilnicki said that currently only the Museum of Fine Arts curators 
are exempt by Charter. He said that was the only department that 
funded curators at the time the Charter was amended. He said that 
neither the Art Commission nor the Airport currently has any exempt 
curators. He said we are trying to co-sponsor a Charter amendment 
with the Art Commission to put this in line with what we thought was 
the original intent of the Charter. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how many people this concerned. 

Mr. Ilnicki responded that there were three positions at the Airport 
and five or six at the Art Commission. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that before he voted on this he would 
want to know how the Mayor felt about it. He asked if there would be 
one Charter amendment for the Art Commission and one for the Airport. 

Mr. Ilnicki responded that the Charter amendment would be general 
enough so that any curator who was involved in the art field would be 
exempted. 

Mr. Turpen said that this item could be put over in order to try and 
get a sense of how the Mayor felt. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Mayor probably does not want to 
overload the ballot with propositions exempting employees with Prop D 
on the bal lot. 

Mr. Ilnicki said that there was a time problem. He said that if this 
matter is not introduced before the Board of Supervisors by May 19 it 
will be too late to make the November ballot. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked what the compelling need was in not 
having the same protection for these employees that every other 
employee at the Airport has. 

Mr. Ilnicki responded that the need was threefold: first, there has 
been a consensus from our Exhibits Program, as well as from Claire 
Isaacs of the Art Commission, that the examination system is not 
meeting the needs of either department. He said that the minimum 
qualifications are too general. Secretaries who worked in an art 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 16 



field are being allowed to qualify; the test questions do not test 
for a sense of esthetics; and, as a result, Civil Service is adopting 
lists of potential employees who are not qualified. He said that the 
Airport recently had to terminate an employee who was on probation 
because he could not do the job yet, out of the three qualified 
candidates he was thought to be the best person. He said that the 
Art Commission has been experiencing similar difficulties. He said 
that in order to really fill the needs of the departments separate 
exams for each position should be given even though it would not be 
cost effective and we would loose the flexibility to transfer people 
around. He said that using the Civil Service system has generally 
not worked out. Mr. Ilnicki concluded by saying that based on 
research, the intent of the Charter was to exempt curators because of 
these very reasons. That is why all curators at the Museum of Fine 
Arts are exempt. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission might want to approve this 
subject to the Mayor's approval. 

Commissioner Bernstein was unhappy that the Commission did not have 
more time to consider this. 

Mr. Turpen said that if the Commission was unhappy they did not have 
to act on this item and the Art Commission could go their own way. 
He suggested, with the Mayor's approval, that the Airport could write 
a ballot argument supporting the amendment. He said he would also 
make sure that the language includes all curators. 



Mr. Turpen reminded Commissioner Bernstein that a replacement was 
needed for Commissioner Coblentz on the Airport/Art Joint Committee, 



Commissioner Bernstein, referring back to item 10, asked Mr. Bouey 
how many feet were involved. He said he was doing a 35,000 square 
foot warehouse and wanted to compare costs. 

Mr. Bouey responded that a comparison was not possible as this 
contract is probably 2-1/2 times more expensive than a normal 
demolition contract. He explained that the building has been 
finished around this area so in order to protect both the airfield 
and the building Echo West, the low bidder, is being required to take 
the debris to one area and then take it from there to another area. 
He said that the amount of labor necessary to complete this contract 
has been greatly increased. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked why the area was not cleaned up during 
construction. 

Mr. Bouey responded that the area was originally intended for Host's 
first class restaurant. He said that about a year ago Jason Yuen 
brought an item to the Commission explaining why Host would not be 
able to build their restaurant in that area. The Commission then 
approved a new location in the South Terminal. He explained that the 
support columns necessary to reinforce the building damaged part of 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 17 



the HVAC system and the electrical network. The area must now be 
demolished and brought down to its studs so a new tenant can go in 
and improve it. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

13. Declaration of Emergency: 

Pavement Repair - Runway 10L-28R and 1L-19R Intersection 

No. 86-0098 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Commission in 
declaring the emergency in pavement 
failure at the Runway 10L-28R and 
1L-19R Intersection, directing the 
Director of Airports to effect the 
necessary repairs and requesting the 
Controller to certify funds needed to 
effect such repairs. 



14. Type II Modifications for Two South Terminal Complex Construction 
Contracts 

Contract modification to provide 
additional work for unforeseen 
conditions, increased scope, 
deficiencies in the plans and 
specifications, and design changes, 

No. 86-0099 Contract 1410ABCD - South Terminal 

Renovation Phase I - $48,148.63. 

No. 86-0100 Contract 1410EF - South Terminal 

Renovation Phase II - $34,971.00. 



15. Rental Credit - Associated Limousine Operators of San Francisco 

No. 86-0101 Resolution approving a rental credit 

to Associated Limousine Operators of 
San Francisco in the amount not to 
exceed $5,358.98 for the purchase of 
electric time clocks and installation 
of electrical outlets at limousine 
counters . 



16. Rental Credit for Dias Airport Barber Shop 

No. 86-0102 Resolution granting a rental credit to 

Dias Airport Barber Shop for moving 
expenses . 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 18 



17. Tenant Improvement: 

UAL-MOC Building 74 - Professional Employemnt Office 
T-3109 - $80,000.00 - No Cost to City 

No. 86-0103 



Tenant Improvement: 

Chevron Aviation Fuel Line Modification - Plots 24 and 22 

T-3105 - $80,000.00 - No Cost to City 

No. 85-0104 



19. Tenant Improvement: 

PG&E Gas Main Replacement at Airport Entrance 
T-3110 - $45,000.00 - No Cost to City 

No. 86-0105 



20. Airport Contract No. 1728: 

Repair of Timber Trestle at Drainage Pumping Station No. 2 

No. 86-0106 Proposed resolution approving the 

final plans and specifications and 
authorizing the Director to call for 
bids for Airport Contract No. 1728, 
Repair of Timber Trestle at Drainage 
Pump Station No. 2. 



I. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing was opened at 10:12 AM and closed at 10:20 AM. Items 
21 and 22 were called together. There was no public testimony. 

21. Hearing Regarding Increase in Outdoor Aircraft Storage Rates 

Hearing regarding increased aircraft 
storage rates for (1) general aviation 
aircraft and (2) for commercial 
carriers using Plot 42. 

22. Hearing Regarding Proposed Reduction in the Garage Daily Parking Rate 

Hearing regarding a proposal to reduce 
the daily parking rate in the garage 
from $12 to $11 . 

Mr. Turpen said that SFO's 24-hour parking rate is lower than most 
U.S. airports. He said that the last increase was in 1982 and felt 
it was appropriate to bring our rates in line with other airports. 

Mr. Turpen explained, with respect to the second public hearing item, 
that because of the demands on the long term parking lot staff is 



Minutes, May 6. 1986, Page 19 



seeking to encourage additional use of the central parking structure 
as it is presently underutilized. He felt that by lowering the day 
rate individuals who use the long term lot might be encouraged to use 
the garage, thereby minimizing the number of closures in the long 
term lot. He explained that the preliminary numbers indicate that we 
will make money due to the increased use of the garage. 



Commissioner Bernstein asked if staff had the results of the study 
for ground transportation rules. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the results will be discussed at the May 20 
meeting. He said that the Commission should have copies by Monday. 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



L. ADJOUNRMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 



There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:20 AM to go into closed session. 



Jean Caramatti 
Cpmmission Secretary 



Minutes, May 6, 1986, Page 20 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




XJCUME1MT3 DEPT. 

SEP 2 5 1936 
isco 



MINUTES 



JUNE 3, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEiSHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Ai rports Commi ssion 



June 3. 



986 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 

A. 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 



CALL TO ORDER 



ROLL CALL: 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



PAGE 



C. 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 
May 6, 1986 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



86-0124 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Cancel lation of July 1 , 1986 
meeting 

Smarte Carte 



3 
4-5 



1. 
2. 



4. 



6. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Award Of Contract 1416AB-R, 

Boarding Area 'C & Aprons 86-0125 

Authorization for Pre-Bid 

Conference: Boarding Area 

'E' - Principal Concession 

Lease 86-0126 

Authorization for Pre-Bid 
Conference: Lease of Auto- 
matic Teller Machines 86-0127 

Bid Call - Airport Contract 

1639: Pol ice Substation 

Offices - 2nd Floor, North 

Connector 86-0128 

Schematic Design Approval for 

Full Service Baggage Storage 

Concession 86-0129 

Amendment to Lease No. 85-0108, 

Associated Operators of San 

Francisco 86-0130 



6-7 



7. Consent to Allow Aeroplex Stores, 
Inc . to Sel 1 Thei r Stock to 
Greyhound International 86-0131 

8. $85,000 Contract with the Museum 
Society, Fine Arts Museums 86-0132 

9. $18,000 Contract with Asian Art 

Museum of San Francisco 86-0133 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER: 

10. Retirement Resolution - 

John Throne 86-0134 

11. Tenant Improvement: Pacific 
Southwest Trading - Aviation 
Fuel Line Tie-In to Chevron - 
Boarding Area 'A' - T-3107 - 

$75,000 - No Cost to City 86-0135 

12. Type II Modification for 
Contract 1414AB: Boarding 
Area 'B' Renovation/South 

Concession Area - $3,823 86-0136 

13. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1727: Emergency Pavement 

Repairs (1986-87) 86-0137 

14. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1735: Broken and Damaged 
Glass Replacement - International 
Terminal 86-0138 

15. Request for Approval of Travel/ 
Training for Airports Commission 
Representative 86-0139 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

Burlington Northern 9-11 



J. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 11 



Minutes, June 3, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

June 3, 1986 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Commissione r Bernstein introduced Don Richards Stephens and welcomed him 
to the Commi ssion . 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of May 6, 1986 were adopted by order of 
the Commission President. 

No. 86-0124 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution No. 
86-0121 regarding settlement of a 
claim, and 86-0122 terminating the 
Airline Motor Coach Service Agreement 
with SF0 Airporter at the Closed 
Session of May 20, 1986. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fleishell asked that the July 1st meeting be cancelled due to 
the Director's absence. 



Minutes, June 3, 1986, Page 3 



Commissioner Goosby said he understood that staff was meeting tomorrow to 
discuss the impact on the location of pre-flight screenings and asked the 
Director to keep the Commission apprised of the situation anG any options 
being entertained. 



Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, presented the Commission with an 
L-shaped cart used in Hong Kong as well as Smarte Carte's version of an 
L-shaped ca r t. He said that consistent with the Commission's direction at 
the last meeting he advised Smarte Carte that their modified cart design 
was not acceptable and that they had 90 days in which to present a design 
consistent with the criteria the Airports Commission established. He 
added that this requirement to address the Commission criteria is 
contained in their lease. 

Mr. Glenn Smith, Smarte Carte, read the following statement to the 
Commi ssion : 

"Smarte Carte has, ove r the life of the company, carefully and thought- 
fully developed and redesigned the cart to its current specifications with 
two key considerations in mind; function and safety. More than 95 percent 
of Smarte Carte's revenues are derived from airport rental operations, 
therefore Smarte Carte is totally committed to the needs of airport facil- 
itators and the air traveling public. Smarte Carte has invested in excess 
of $100,000 in developing, prototyping and evaluating no less than 16 
luggage cart designs from 1977 to 1986 and at all times the concern has 
been focused on manueverabi 1 i ty, steerabi 1 i ty, stability and safety for 
passengers as well as for facilities. For example, the cantilevered 
section is specifically constructed to keep large loads of luggage in 
check. One of these 16 designs includes the L-shaped cart. Smarte Carte 
rejected this design for two main reasons; it was found to be too unstable 
for luggage under many conditions and for use as a stroller, and loading 
and unloading from the control unit became more difficult for the 
passenger. " 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Smith what he meant by "control unit." 

Mr. Smith responded that the control unit is the dispenser. 

"Smarte Carte's insurance carrier has stated that any change to the design 
of the current luggage cart may result in cancellation of any and all 
existing liability insurance coverage." 

"Smarte Carte, Inc. earnestly wishes to fully cooperate with this 
Commission and any reasonable demands made by it. The L-shaped cart 
concerns us because of questions regarding insurance coverage and safety. 
Would you please address these concerns 7 " (Smarte Carte's statement and 
the letter from their insurance carrier are attached.) 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he looked at both carts and felt that the 
Hong Kong cart is far superior as far as stability is concerned. He said 
he was astonished to learn a few weeks ago that staff was told by Smarte 
Carte that the "pull-me" cart was designed to fall over when overloaded 
with luggage. He said he could not understand how that would be 
considered a safety feature. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the Hong Kong cart is used in every 
international airport in Europe and in Asia and seems to function quite 
well; he was not concerned about its safety. He said that although Smarte 



Minutes, June 3, 1986, Page 4 



Carte's L-shaped cart would be satisfactory he felt staff should move 
ahead to prepare bid specifications when this contract is up and make 
certain that the specs include the approval of an L-shaped cart by staff. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis noted the fact that the insurance company's 

letter stated that they "may or may not make it necessary to increase the 

premium." She said that apparently it would require revaluation in order 

to determine whether or not it is considered uninsurable. 

Mr. Turpen said that although the Airport has asked Smarte Carte for a 
resubmitted plan, Mr. Smith s comments would indicate that they rejected 
their L-shaped cart design and do not intend to submit it to the 
Commission. He recommended writing to Smarte Carte to determine if they 
were prepared to proceed with the L-shaped design. If they reject it they 
are in violation of their commitment to the Airports Commission to secure 
its approval of a cart design and staff will then proceed as Commissioner 
Fleishell suggested. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

1. Award of Contract 1416AB-R, Boarding Area "C" & Aprons 

No. 86-0125 Pending Human Rights Commission's 

approval, Airports Commission will 
award Contract 1416AB-R, Boarding Area 
'C & Aprons . 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
told the Commission that there were two protests to this contract; 
both protests were denied and neither contractor intended to pursue 
the issue. 



Authorization for Pre-Bid Conference: 
Boarding Area 'E' - Principal Concession Lease 

No. 86-0126 Resolution approving leasehold speci- 

fications and authorizing Director to 
hold a Pre-Bid Conference for Boarding 
Area 'E', Principal Concession Lease 
and Agreement for Retail Merchandising 
Sales in the North Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this agenda item pertains to that 
space right near the Ice Cream Parlor at the head of Boarding Area 
'E' where American and Delta are located, as well as the space out on 
Boarding Area 'F', for a total of four spaces. Staff is recommending 
a pre-bid conference to obtain potential bidder reaction to the 
possibility of developing these four spaces as a package. 



Minutes, June 3, 1986, Page 5 



Commissioner Tsougarakis was given unanimous approval by the 
Commission to be excused from voting on Item No. 3 due to a potential 
conf 1 i ct . 

Authorization for Pre-Bid Conference: 
Lease of Automatic Teller Machines 



No. 86-0127 



Resolution approving leasehold speci- 
fications and authorizing Director to 
hold a Pre-Bid Conference for the 
lease of Automatic Teller Machines in 
both the North and South Terminals. 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1639: 

Police Substation Offices - 2nd Floor, North Connector 

No. 86-0128 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1639 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this item was discussed at length 
at the May 6 meeting. It deals with the relocation of staff and the 
consolidation of Police operations in the International Terminal. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if this was for alternations or new 
construction. 

Mr. Turpen responded that this was for alterations. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how many feet were involved. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director, Facilities, Operations and Main- 
tenance, responded that a little over 3300 feet were involved. The 
cost covers partitions, a new lobby area for public access to the 
substation, bullet proof glass, and a device through which the public 
can pass documents and other material to a police officer without 
that officer being exposed to the public. He said that it works out 
to about $74 per square foot plus an additional $30,000 for the items 
mentioned . 

Commissioner Bernstein questioned the amount per square foot. 

Mr. Bouey explained that this office space is being remodeled; a new 
roof is being added and the HVAC system has to be reconfigured. He 
said that this estimate is predicated on the last two bids received 
for s i mi 1 ar work. 



The following item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

Schematic Design Approval for Full Service Baggage Storage Concession 

No. 86-0129 Resolution approving the schematic 

design for the Full Service Baggage 
Storage Concession and authorization 
to begin construction. 



Minutes, June 3, 1986, Page 6 



Commissioner GoosDy asked if there was a schematic design. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Design Review Committee has aDproved 
the design but he suggested one additional review be incorporated due 
to the nature of this concession. He said that this will be a long 
term baggage storage area wnich will include safeguards such as 
x-raying and opening and checking baggage. He said that even though 
these procedures have been reviewed by the Airport Police he 
recommended making the security aspect subject to their final 
approval . 

The Commission reviewed the schematic designs and had no comments. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked about security for the baggage. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director of Business and Finance, 
responded that the area will be staffed and the baggage itself will 
be at the back of the facility, behind a counter. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked about insurance requirements. 

Ms. Gittens responded that she believed that the insurance require- 
ment on this lease was $1 -mi 1 1 i on for general liability. She said 
that she has not yet asked the tenant if he has obtained the 
insurance. 

Commissioner Fleishell suggested that the insurance be checked. He 
said that the Airport would be liabel in the event the system fails 
and a bomb is placed in the area. 

Ms. Gittens said that extensive bomb proofing was installed in this 
area . 

Mr. Turpen added that the procedures are very thorough and will guard 
against introducing any device into this area. 

Ms. Gittens added that baggage left more than 24-hours is sent off 
sight. 

Mr. Turpen recommended that the Commission resolution be amended to 
require a final approval by the Airport Police. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if stored baggage was brought directly to 
the plane or if the passenger had to pick it up, bring it to the 
ticket counter and check it in. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the baggage must be picked up by the 
passenger and checked in. He said that this is simply a storage area 
for larger oversized bags. 

Ms. Gittens said that in the procedures for this concession, any bags 
stored must oe accompanied by an I.D. for the passenger checking the 
bag. 

Commissioner Fleishell moved that the first sentence of the last 
paragraph of the resolution be amended as follows: "...that this 
Commission approves, subject to the further approval of the Airport 
Police Department, a schematic design for the lease..." 



Minutes, June 3, 1986, Page 7 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

Amendment to Lease No. 85-0108, Associated Limousine Operators of San 
Franci sco 

No. 86-0130 Resolution amending Associated 

Limousine Operators of San Francisco's 
Lease No. 85-0108, Section 8.02(c), 
Automobile Liability Insurance Limits. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he no longer had any concerns about this 
i tern. 



7. Consert to Allow Aeroplex Stores, Inc. to Sell Their Stock to 
Greyhound International 

No. 86-0131 



Items 8 and 9 were called together and unanimously adopted. 

$85,000 Contract with the Museum Society, Fine Arts Museums 

No. 86-0132 Contract for $85,000 with the Museum 

Society, Fine Arts Museums of San 
Francisco for the purpose of providing 
and implementing Temporary Exhibitions 
at San Francisco International Airport 
for the fiscal year 1986/87. 



$18,000 Contract with Asian Art Museum of San Francisco 

No. 86-0133 Contract for $18,000 with the Asian 

Art Museum of San Francisco for loan 
of Chinese Qing Dynasty Porcelain, mid 
March, 1987, through June, 1987. 

Commissioner Goosby said that some time in the future the Commission 
and staff may want to set a maximum amount to be allocated towards 
Airport exhibits. . .possibly a percentage of the budget or a goal. He 
was not trying to undermine the program however he felt it might be 
prudent to start looking at how much money is being spent. He said 
he had no problem with voting for these items. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if the existing budget had a line item 
for the program. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it does but he thought that Commissioner 
Goosby was referring to how the program has grown over the last five 
years. He said he did not believe that the program has grown appre- 
ciably but he would be happy to provide those numbers. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked what the $85,000 covered. 

Mr. Turpen responded that everything is listed in the agenda item. 



Minutes, June 3, 1986, Page 8 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 
10. Retirement Resolution - John Throne 
No. 86-0134 



11. Tenant Improvement: Pacific Southwest Trading 

Aviation Fuel Line Tie-in to Chevron - Boarding Area 'A' 
T-3107 - 575,000 - No Cost to City 



No. 86-0135 



12. Type II Modification for Contract 1414AB: 

Boarding Area 'B' Renovation/South Concession Area - $3,823 

No. 86-0136 Contract modification to provide 

additional structural steel framing 
for duct housings at roof of Boarding 
Area 'B' . 



13. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1727: 
Emergency Pavement Repairs (1986-87) 

No. 86-0137 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract No. 1727, 
and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



14. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1735: 

Broken and Damaged Glass Replacement - International Terminal 

No. 86-0138 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airports Contract No. 
1735 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



15. Request for Approval of Travel /Training for Airports Commission 
Representative 

No. 86-0139 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she continues to receive letters from 
Burlington Northern and thought the Commission took care of this issue on 



Minutes, June 3. 1986, Page 9 



April 15. She did not know if it was in order but suggested taking action 
to reaffirm the Commission's position on the Burlington matter. If 
necessary, she recommended taking a vote. 

Mr. Turpen said that when the Commission acted on April 15 he was directed 
to meet with Burlington Northern to hear any further information they 
might want to present. If, in his opinion, that information shed new 
light on the subject he was to reintroduce the matter to the Commission. 
He said he met with Burlington Northern on April 25; they did not provide 
any new information and as a result he wrote to them explaining that the 
matter would not be calendared for reconsideration. Mr. Turpen said that 
Burlington Northern took exception to the fact that he responded for the 
Commission and reinitiated its request to the Commission. He said it 
would be appropriate at this time for the Commission to direct the 
Commission Secretary to respond to Burlington Northern, indicating that 
the Commission has no interest in hearing the matter further. 

For the record, Mr. Turpen added that on April 2 Burlington Northern filed 
a complaint against San Francisco International Airport with the FAA. As 
a result of that complaint, the FAA initiated an administrative investiga- 
tion into the Burlington Northern question on May 28. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she has not seen anything from Burlington 
that would change her opinion on the subject. She felt that the 
Commission has worked hard to create a strong noise abatement policy and 
there is a very definite strategy to pursue that policy. She felt that 
the Q707 matter is a direct contradiction to that policy. Commissioner 
Tsougarakis said she felt strongly enough to send Burlington Northern a 
letter reaffirming the Commission's stand of April 15 and telling them the 
item will not be reheard. 

Commissioner Goosby did not know whether or not it was necessary to vote 
again but he had no objection if it emphasized the Commission's position, 
reminded Burlington Northern of previous actions the Commission has taken, 
and, that the Commission has not moved from that position. 

Mr. Turpen added that Burlington Northern filed their complaint two weeks 
before the Commission took action; the FAA is just now getting around to 
notifying the Airport. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he had raised the issue earlier indicating 
that there might be a technical defect in the record by having the 
Director respond. He felt that the Commission should refer to the letter 
received, treat it as a petition for rehearing and have the Secretary 
indicate that the Commission denies that petition for rehearing. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how Burlington could present new evidence if 
they are precluded from appearing before the Commission. 

Mr. Turpen responded that at this point the matter has been referred to 
the FAA. If, in fact, Burlington Northern has new evidence they would 
present it to the FAA and look to them to either support or reject their 
position. The FAA has initiated an administrative inquiry into 
Burlington's complaint. That inquiry requires that the Airport respond to 
the FAA by June 17. The FAA will evaluate the complaint and the Airport's 
response and at that point make a decision as to whether or not they will 
proceed. If the FAA decides to proceed, the next step would be to hold a 
hearing before an Administrative Law judge where both sides would present 
their position. Beyond the Administrative Law judge there is one last 
option in the Court Appeals. 



Minutes, June 3, 1986, Page 10 



Commissioner Bernstein said that by this action today Burlington Northern 
would then be precluded from presenting further evidence to the Commission. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they will have ample opportunity before the FAA 
but will have no further opportunity to address the Commission. He added 
that if Burlington Northern notifies the Airport that they have decided to 
purchase DC8-70 series aircraft, which is stage 3 noise certificated and 
currently operates at SFO, the Commission will be responsive. However, he 
said that where there is a continued reiteration of the same information, 
with no new information being introduced, he does not think it incumbent 
upon the Commission to take up its time to rehear matters that have 
already been decided on. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if it was possible to go beyond the Court of 
Appeal s . 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded that the matter 
cou 1 ^ be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked the Commission Secretary to send a letter to 
Burlington Northern on behalf of the Commission denying their request for 

a rehear i ng . 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:35 to go into closed session. 



Jean Caramatti 
Commi ssion Secretary 



Minutes, June 3, 1986, Page 11 



JOHN DEERE 

INSURANCE 

Our good name is the best insurance you can buy 




Emery Ins. Agency 
Bob Emery, Agent 
162C Mahtorr.edi Avenue 
Wahtomedi Minnesota 55115 
612-125 0736 



Ik Kay 19S6 



Saarte Carte, Inc. 
White 3ear Lake, Kn. 

RE: Possible P-edesigrdng cf Carts 

Dear Sirs: 

Insurance was provided for Saarte Carte, Inc., and underwritten on the 
basis of current cart design, any changes in such design, would aake it 
necessary to revaluate your possible risk exposure. 

Such revaluation lay or nay not, make it necessary to increase your 
preaiuc, or possibly lead to a midterm cancellation. 

Please be aware, that the Minnesota Department of Comnerce allows for 
midterm cancellations, if the insured risk has substantially changed 
in character since the inception cf the policy. 



Please keep us informed cf any changes, 
a timely manner 



Sincerely 



:hat we may act on them in 



Bob Emery 
Agent 




2480 E. County Road F. 

White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110-7499 

USA 

Telephone (612) 429-3614 
Watt 1-800-328-9006 
Telex 501215 



smarte carte 



INC. 



CART CONTROL SPECIALISTS 



June 3, 1986 



TO: 



CC: 



SUBJECT: 



SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORTS COMMISSION 
Hon. Morris Bernstein, President 
Hon. J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Hon. Z. L. Goosby 
Hon. Athena Tsougarakis 

Louis A. Turpen, Director of Airports 

Statement of position from Smarte Carte, Inc. regarding design 

of r ental luggage carts at San Francisco International -irport for 

consideration of the Commission at the meeting of June 3, 1386. 



Smarte Carte, Inc. (SCI) has, over the life of the company, care f ully and 
thoughtfully developed and redesigned the cart to it's current specifications 
with two key considerations in mind; function and safety. 

More than ninety-five percent of SCI's revenues are derived from airport rental 
operations. Therefore, SCI is totally committed to the needs of airport 
facilitators and the air traveling public. 

SCI has invested in excess of $130,000 in developing, prototyping and evaluating 
no less than sixteen luggage cart designs from 1977 to 1986, and at all times, 
the concern has been focused on maneuverability, steerabi 1 i ty, stability and 
safety for passengers, as well as facilities. For example, the cantilevered 
section is specifically constructed to keep large loads of luggage in check. 

One of those sixteen designs includes the "L" shaped cart. SCI rejected this 
design for two main reasons; it was found to be too unstable for luggage ^nder 
many conditions and for use as a stroller, and loading and unloading from the 
control unit becomes more difficult for the passenger. 

SCI's insurance carrier has stated that any change to the design of the Current 
luggage cart may result in cancellation of any and all existing liability 
insurance coverage. A letter from our insurance carrier is attached. 

Smarte Carte, Inc. earnestly wishes to fully cooperate with this Commission and 
any reasonable demands made by it. The "L" shaped cart concerns us because of 
questions regarding insurance coverage and safety. Would you please a-ddress 
these concerns? 




irector, Sales and Operations 






SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




PUBLIC LIBKARV 



MINUTES 



JUNE 17. 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIVJ 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

June 17, 1986 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 

A. 
B. 
C. 



D. 
E. 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 



CALL TO ORDER: 



ROLL CALL: 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 
May 20, 1986 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



SPECIAL ITEM: 

Request for Modification of 
Insurance Requirement: SFO 
Airporter Permit 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



86-0142 



PAGE 
3 

3 



86-0149 



3-4 



F. 



G. 

H. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Ground Transportation 

Status of United Airl ines 
International Operations 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

United Airlines Cogeneration 
Facil ity 

Award of Contract No. 1432A: 
Relevel Runway 28R, Extend 
Taxiway 'K' and Fillets of 
Taxiways 'D' and 'R' 

Design Approval - Duty Free/ 
In-Bond Fast Shop 

Authorization to Enter Into 
Month-To-Month Permit for 
Temporary Flower Sales in 
International Terminal 



86-0143 
86-0144 

86-0145 



4-9 
9 

10 



10 

10-13 
13 

13 



Modification of Professional 

Services Agreement: Simpson, 

Gumpertz, & Heger, Inc. - Roofing 

Consultant - $18,500 86-0146 13-14 



I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

9. Retirement Resolution - 

Francis C. Capone 86-0141 14 

10. Contract 1013R, Change 

Order Approval 86-0147 14 

11. Tenant Improvement: UAL-MOC 
Building 84 - Modifications to 
Support Engine Overhaul Stands 
T-3126 - $135,000 - No Cost to 

City 86-0148 14 



CORRESPONDENCE: 15 



L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 15 



Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

June 17, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Athena Tsougarakis 

Don Richards Stephens 

Commissioner Goosby arrived at 9:04 AM 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of May 20, 1986 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 86-0142 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution 
86-0140 regarding an agreement with 
Alexander, Mlllner and McGee for legal 
services at the closed session of June 
3, 1986. 



E. SPECIAL ITEM: 

The following item was removed from the calendar. 

1. Request for Modification of Insurance Requirement: SFO Airporter 
Permi t 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that at the last meeting the 



Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 3 



Commission lowered the general liability insurance requirements for 
the new Airport Motor Coach permit from $20-million to $5-mi 1 1 i on . 
He said that Mr. Leonoudakis objected and requested that the 
insurance requirement remain at the current level of $2-million. 

Mr. Gordon Esposto, representing SFO Airporter, told the Commission 
that it would be very expensive to get this additional coverage. He 
said that SFO Airporter has had the same coverage since the contract 
began and they have only had one claim, which was for general 
liability, in the amount of $500. He said that Airporter met PUC's 
requirement and he felt the Commission should retain the same amount 
of insurance until the contract goes out to bid. Mr. Esposto said 
that Mr. Kevin O'Shea, Airporter's insurance agent, was present to 
answer any questions. 

Commissioner Stephens asked how much it would cost Airporter with the 
additional coverage. 

Mr. Esposto responded that the additional insurance would raise the 
cost to $62,000. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Ground Transportation at San Francisco International Airport 

Mr. Turpen said the hotel/motel courtesy vehicle operators object 
strenuosly to paying this type of fee to use the Airport. He said 
that he sent the Commission copies of correspondence from these 
operators and expects them to come before the Commission to appeal 
for a lesser fee. Some of the operators have talked in terms of 300, 
500, 600 and 700 but no one has talked in terms of $1.00 per trip. 

Mr. Turpen said that the reason for his report is to keep the 
Commission apprised of what is happening. Staff has outlined a 
schedule believed to be achievable. That schedule includes mailing 
the redraft of the rules and regulations to all interested parties on 
July 1; propose a continuation of the public hearing on July 15. The 
Commission would then have until August 5 to think over comments made 
by the public as well as staff recommendations and render their 
decision on August 5. Thirty days later the Airport would then begin 
issuing permits to ground transportation operators. 

Mr. Turpen said that the numbers have been made available to ground 
transportation operators and a meeting has been scheduled with them 
for June 25 to go over this issue. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how many trips the hotel /motel operators 
make on the average. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they make 1200 trips a day. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what the average cost was per day per hotel, 

Ms. Angela Gi t tens , Deputy Director for Business and Finance, 
responded that based on the hotel/motels captured in the sampling, 
the cost ran from seven for the Howard Johnson and the Vagabond Inn 
to a high of 215 for the Amfac Hotel. She said that Villa, for 
example, i s 30 per day. 



Minutes , June 17, 1986 Page 4 



Ms. Gittens said that it would cost Villa $11,000 a year if the fee 
was $1.00, and, $12,000 to $13,000 for $1.03 per trip. She said that 
under the old graduated scale Villa would have had to pay $4000. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the sample was predicated on an 
uncontrolled roadway with vehicles circling so the numbers are high 
compared to what actually will happen. He said that a courtesy 
vehicle will loop the roadway in order to pick up two or three hotel 
patrons in a single trip. That single trip for the hotel might 
result in three or four trips for the Airport as the courtesy vehicle 
continues to circle. 

Mr. Turpen suggested that two things might help this: the first 
alternative is a staging area for vehicles to wait rather than 
circling; the second is charging a fee. Staff feels that the ground 
transportation operators will be a lot less likely to indiscrimin- 
ately circle the roadway if they were charged a fee. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what they were currently paying per month. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it was $75 per vehicle. 

Commissioner Stephens asked when the $1.00 would be paid. 

Mr. Turpen responded that staff is considering a requirement for 
operators to file an estimate of the number of trips they plan to 
make to the Airport during a month with staff. That estimate will be 
audited and operators will be sent a bill at the end of each month 
based on the actual number of trips. He added that there are auto- 
mated mechanisms that can be installed for doing traffic counting. 

Commissioner Stephens said that the method of payment would then be 
different from that of the taxi drivers. He said that if the 
operators agree they will have a certain number of trips to the 
Airport a day, then a circling trip picking up two or three 
passengers is one trip. 

Mr. Turpen said that a trip has been defined as any passage by the 
International Terminal on the upper or lower level. 

Commissioner F 1 e i she 1 1 asked if Mr. Turpen expected these operators 
to report the number of trips on an honor system. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he expected the operators to file their 
estimated number at the beginning of the month. That number will be 
audited by one of several mechanisms. He said that the Airport would 
not be able to get into an automated counting system by September. 
He said that such a system would tell us which company passed the 
terminal and when. He added that it was a management tool for the 
company as well as the Airport. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Gittens if she said there were 150 
trips a day. 

Ms. Gittens responded that she said there were 1200 trips per day for 
the hotels/motels combined. She said it does not include San 
Francisco hotels because they do not run courtesy services to the 
Airport on a routine basis. She said if a downtown hotel sends out a 
courtesy vehicle it is usually a limousine and that would fall under 
the limousine procedures. 



Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 5 



Mr. Turpen said that some of the downtown hotels have contracted with 
van services like SuperShuttle , Lorries and California Mini Bus to 
pick up their passengers for them. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he received a letter yesterday from the 
Restaurant/Hotel Owners Association who claim that they make some 400 
trips a day just on the upper level. He wanted to know if they also 
use the lower level. Commissioner Bernstein also asked if the 
purpose of the fee was to make additional money for the Airport or to 
control traffic. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport has an obligation to cover 
costs within a cost center and this cost center has been operating at 
a deficit. He added that those persons who enjoy the use of the 
Airport roadway system in the promotion of their business have an 
obligation to pay for that roadway system and for the cost of its 
operation. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if we were trying to make a profit. 

Mr. Turpen responded that we were not. He said that it has been 
operating at almost a $1 -mi 1 1 i on deficit for a couple of years and 
has been subsidized by other aspects of the Airport operation. He 
explained that when the Airport signed the agreement with the air- 
lines the idea was that each area of the Airport would pay its own 
way and that the airlines would not be obligated to subsidize other 
parts of the Airport. He said that at this point we are subsidizing 
a lot of these companies and underwriting the cost of their trans- 
portation operations to the Airport with money from other cost 
centers . 

Commissioner Fleishell agreed that every truck entering the Airport 
is subsidized. According to the Lease and Use Agreement we cannot 
charge a fee to any supplying vehicle to any tenant at the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen argued that the airlines are paying 35 percent of the cost 
of the Airport and he firmly believed that they have a right to have 
their suppliers come onto the Airport. That 35 percent goes to cover 
the cost of those trucks. He said that the hotel/motel people don't 
pay anything other than a token fee for operating on the Airport. He 
concluded by saying that the Commission can set the rate at anything 
it wants. The Commission can waive the rates, or it can set the 
rates at 160. He said it was his obligation to recommend a reason- 
able fee under the circumstances and that is what he is doing. 

Commissioner Stephens asked who was not included in this. 

Mr. Turpen responded that persons not included in this regulation are 
persons under contract to the Airport such as SFO Airporter,. 
Associated Limousines, on-Airport rental cars, and taxi cabs. 

Commissioner Stephens said that taxi cabs pay a fee as they leave the 
Airport and limousines pay by contract. He asked if they will submit 
chips as they leave the Airport and then pay according to the number 
of trips. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the limousine contract was a competitive 
bid and Associated Limousine agreed to pay the Airport $427,000 per 
year for the right to take limousine traffic from the Airport. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if all limousines in San Francisco 
belonged to that association. 



Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 6 



Mr. Turpen responded that Associated Limousine specifically is 
allowed to pick up at the Airport. He said that there are other 
limousines which come to the Airport but they cannot operate as 
Associated operates. Associated is allowed to have a counter on the 
lower level of the terminal and to take walk-up traffic to that 
counter downtown. Other limousine services must operate totally on a 
pre-arranged basis. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if the other limousine services paid a 
fee or where they treated as anyone else coming to the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they are obligated to park in the garage 
and pay whatever garage rate they have. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the proposed fees would bring a 
prof i t. 

Mr. Turpen responded that these fees would not bring a profit. 

Commissioner Bernstein did not object to charging a fee but he did 
feel it should be reasonable and based upon the cost and use of the 
roadway. 

Mr. Turpen responded that staff has based the fee on the cost of 
maintaining the roadway. He said that the fact that the operators 
being affected by the fee don't like it cannot be helped. He said 
that if the Commission feels the figure staff is recommending is too 
large an increase it can set any number it likes. Based on the 
volume we have today, the cost to operate the roadway is about $1.00 
per vehi cle . 

Commissioner Goosby asked what the cost was based on. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it was based on maintenance and amorti- 
zation of the roadway. 

Ms. Gittens said it was the amortization of the capital costs plus 
the operating costs of the police. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that the operating cost should be divided 
among everyone who uses the Airport, including Airport employees. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that it should also include passengers 
who don't park at the terminal. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it does. She said it also includes 
private vehicles who pay their way via the garage. If the estimated 
cost of private vehicles is taken versus the revenue from the garage 
you would see how these ground transportation operators are being 
subsidized. She added that if a private passenger vehicle pulls up 
to the curb and picks someone up rather than parking in the garage, 
that vehicle is getting off free. 

Mr. Turpen added that that individual is not engaged in a commercial 
venture. He said that it was impractical to try to reach the 13-1/2 
million people a year coming Into the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that it has a policy of not 
subsidizing any aspect of business. He said that this first came up 
during discussions on valet parking. 



Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 7 



Commissioner Bernstein argued that the Commission does not set the 
fee; the fee is set based upon information the Commission receives 
from staff. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the only thing the Commission 
counters with is the number of letters it receives from particular 
interest groups . 

Commissioner Stephens said that the whole purpose of staff is to 
provide the Commission with these figures. If the Commission is not 
going to believe the figures they receive then the staff should be 
changed. If this is the cost of maintaining the Airport roadway he 
wondered why we wouldn't pass that cost on. He said that if the 
policy is that the Airport should not make a profit out of a 
particular function that is fine. If the policy is to recover our 
costs and not subsidize and staff informs the Commission that the 
cost is $1.00, then until proven differently we should believe the 
staff and charge $1 .00. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Gittens to prepare the figures she 
mentioned . 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the big cost for the operator is 
owning a van, not the $1.00 a trip. The operators can work the fee 
into their prices. 

Commissioner Goosby said that perhaps the fees could be graduated. 
He did not feel that the vans had to be the same color if a magnetic 
chip is placed on each van. 

Mr. Turpen said that was no longer an issue. The only issue is 
f i nancial . 

Commissioner Stephens said he would like to see included in that 
information to be provided by Ms. Gittens a rough breakdown on how 
the roadway cost is allocated. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it was true that $ 1 —mi 1 1 i on is the 
total amount being charged to the courtesy vehicles. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the total charge will be about $1.1 —mi 1 1 i on . 

Commissioner Goosby said that the room rates at surrounding hotels/ 
motels reflect these charges but the hotels located in San Francisco 
who occassional ly come out to the Airport don't pay anything. 

Ms. Gittens responded that if a San Francisco hotel sends out a 
limousine it parks in the garage and pays whatever fee is incurred. 

Commissioner Goosby said he did not see anything wrong with a 
passenger informing the limo company that he will be curbside in 
front of a particular airline and to pick him up there. This will 
eliminate the need to park in the garage. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport was considering permits for official 
pick-ups but it would not include private vehicles. He said that in 
1979 the Airport did not know what limousine companies or hotel/motel 
operators were serving the Airport. He said it took us until 1981 to 
figure it out and until that time no fees were charged. 

Mr. Turpen said that the roadway is being congested by indiscriminate 
use and staff felt that permitting vehicles would ease the problem. 
He added that there is an obligation under the Lease and Use Agree- 
ment to balance the cost in the cost center. 

Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 8 



Commissioner Fleishell said he did not think that those individuals 
who are involuntarily involved in transportation, i.e. hotels/motels, 
should be charged the same fee that those individuals who are 
directly in the transportation business. A small hotel or motel is 
forced into providing a van and they should not be charged in the 
same way. He said that Los Angeles does not charge. 

Mr. Turpen responded that Los Angeles has yet to get their act 
together on ground transportation and cannot be used as an example in 
this case. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he could not think of any airport that 
charges a fee. 

Mr. Turpen said that since SFO tends to be the leading Airport in the 
development of ground transportation that would be true. 

Ms. Gittens added that other airports are waiting for us to establish 
procedures because we tend to be first in this area. Staff has 
looked at several airports and most of them either don't have a 
permit system or the system refers only to buses, or, buses and 
limousines. She said that some of the attempts by other airports 
have been tied up in court. She said that New York has a system for 
their buses and taxis but they are trying to pull something together. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis pointed out that the situation at SFO is not 
necessarily comparable to airports like Seattle and Los Angeles. 



Status of United Airlines International Operations 

Mr. Turpen said that on May 1 United relocated their operations to 
the International Terminal. He said that most of the issues have 
been resloved. The outstanding issues are the relocation of SFO 
Helicopter from the United area. The problem is presently being 
studied and he hoped to have some resolution in the near future. The 
executive documents issue is self-explanatory. 

Mr. Turpen said the big issue is leasehold space. When the Airport 
entered into the Lease and Use Agreement all the space at the Airport 
was leased to the airline community with small exception. He said 
this caused some serious problems in terms of United launching its 
operations in the International Terminal because they were forced to 
go to PAN AM to secure additional space. He said that has been 
accompl ished. 

Mr. Turpen explained that there are four major categories in space: 
operation space, which has been secured from PAN AM; ticket counter 
space, which has also been secured from PAN AM and the Airport as of 
last Friday; the VIP Room is still an open issue. He said that 
United attempted to work with PAN AM but nothing developed so staff 
is now working with United to try and find them VIP space in the 
International Terminal. The last space-related area is the interline 
bag system and out-bound bag belt system. He believed those issues 
have finally been resolved. 

Mr. Turpen felt that in view of the magnitude of the change and the 
method in which we arrived at the change, things have gone very 
smoothly. 

Commissioner Goosby was happy to see what he felt was the final step 
in the agreement. He congratulated staff on their efforts. 



Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 9 



G. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was removed from calendar: 

4. United Airlines Cogeneration Facility 

Resolution approving agreement with 
United Airlines, Inc. and lease to 
PG&E in connection with United 
Cogeneration Faci 1 i ty. 

Mr. Turpen said that this item was placed on calendar as an 
accommodation to United Airlines. He is bringing it to the 
Commission's attention because he wants them to be aware that staff 
has been working diligently to try to bring this matter to closure. 
He said that it is United's inability to come to closure with PG&E 
which has caused this delay. United has been told that they must be 
ready to come before the Commission by July 15. 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

5. Award of Contract No. 1432A: 

Relevel Runway 28R, Extend Taxiway 'K' and Fillets of Taxiways 'D' 
and 'R' 

No. 86-0143 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1432A 

to Ghilotti Bros., Inc. in the amount 
of $5,090,100. 

Commissioner Bernstein called on Mr. Mike Kirkley of McGuire and 
Hester. 

Mr. Kirkley said that his company was the second low bidder on this 
project. He said that the best interest of the Airport and the tax- 
payers would not be served in the award of this contract to Ghilotti 
Brothers. He referred to page 2, paragraph 5 of the memorandum 
addressed to the Commission from Mr. Turpen which reads that "...on 
June 5, 1986 Ghilotti Brothers, the apparent low bidder, informed us 
that their bid contained an error resulting in an under bid of 
$650,000 and desired to withdraw their bid. However, after several 
meetings, Ghilotti Brothers has agreed to abide by their bid." 

Mr. Kirkley said McGuire and Hester questioned what went on at those 
meetings. They have asked for any information that was made avail- 
able at those meetings with Airport staff but his company has been 
unable to receive any information as to what happened. If the 
contractor was low by $650,000 and subsequent agreements were made at 
that meeting, his company would like to know. He said that this was 
a public bid and modifications made at subsequent meetings are also 
public information. He said his company was not party to or given 
any information regarding those meetings. 

Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 10 



Mr. Kirkley said his company attended the pre-b i d conference and 
spent a lot of time developing a very tight schedule. He said this 
was a critical job and his company spent time with all of the subs 
trying to detail out accurate timetables. His company feels that any 
contractor who is $650,000 low on a contract of this size did not 
observe those constraints. Further, the electrical sub listed by 
Ghilotti did not obtain any sub-quotes or second tier or supplier 
vendor quotes from any of the electrical suppliers. He said that his 
company questioned whether or not the subcontractor even solicited 
bids. He said that the subcontractor did not attempt to contact any 
of the general contractors known to McGuire and Hester. 

Mr. Kirkley said that the contractor could be fined $20,000-a-day 
liquidated damages in four phases of the work. He said that any slip 
in any one of those four phases could ultimately result in $100,000 
in liquidated damages per calendar day of work. He said that in view 
of this, the job should not be taken lightly. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director, Facilities, Operations and Main- 
tenance, said that this was a difficult decision to make. He said 
that Ghilotti is clearly under the other bidders but it is also clear 
that they made a mistake. He said that Ghilotti explained to him 
that the $650,000 was a clerical error. He said the Airport could 
release Ghilotti from their bid. 

Mr. Bouey said that contrary to what Mr. Kirkley said he knew of no 
contact made by his firm as of 2:30 PM yesterday but would be happy 
to summarize those meetings. 

Mr. Bouey explained that the Airport is not in a position to re-bid. 
The Airport could claim Ghilotti 's bid bond. He said that Ghilotti 
Brothers has successfully completed seven projects for the Airport. 
He explained that this contract, like the others, is done on a unit 
price basis. So many dollars per ton are bid and so many dollars per 
widgit. He said that what often happens is that a bidder might bid 
$10 per widgit but if the price for a widgit drops down to $1.00, no 
contractor has ever approached staff and offered to give back $9.00 a 
wi dgi t . 

Mr. Bouey said that Ghilotti will lose money on this; at best they 
will break even. He said that they have made money on other 
contracts and this is part of the risk of doing business. Ghilotti 
has indicated that they will gladly go forward as they do not want to 
suffer a credibility gap if they were to back out of this bid. Mr. 
Bouey said this is a difficult situation and our inspectors will have 
to watch this contract very closely for claims. 

Mr. Bouey told the Commission that this contract is very critical. 

He explained that this type of contract cannot be done in winter 

because it's raining, the ground is too soft in spring, and, the 

airlines don't want it done in summer. The only time it can be done 
i s during the fal 1 . 

Mr. Bouey said that it was originally thought that it would be done 
in a phase schedule but when staff met with the airlines and the FAA 
they asked if there wasn't some way to tighten up the schedule. The 
schedule was eventually tightened by combining four major projects on 
the runway to keep the closure time to a minimum. 

Mr. Bouey said that because closure of the busiest runway is such an 
important factor in terms of costs to the airlines, staff has gone to 
unprecedented lengths in liquidated damages. He said that normally 
on a construction project the Airport would charge $1,000 to $3,000 



Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 1 1 



per day in liquidated damages but in this instance there is a series 
of liquidated damages that could run anywhere between $10,000 and 
$50,000. He said this is to provide the contractor with the 
motivation to complete the job quickly. He said that the contractors 
will be working a minimum of 16-hours a day with three or four crews, 
and at times, 24-hours a day. 

Commissioner Stephens said that he got the impression from Mr. 
Kirkley that because Ghilotti had so underbid the contract the 
Airport had somehow relaxed the specifications. 

Mr. Bouey said that is not the case. The bid specifications are 
exactly the same. 

Commissioner Stephens said he heard two numbers, $650,000 and 
$1,250,000. He asked how they relate. 

Mr. Bouey responded that the difference between the first bid and the 
second bid is $1,250,000. Ghilotti said that if they hadn't made a 
clerical error their bid would have been approximately $5,750,000. 

Commissioner Stephens said that they would still have been the low 
bidder. He asked if we were going to pay Ghilotti the $5,090,000 and 
let them absorb the $650,000. 

Mr. Bouey said that was correct. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if Ghilotti was a substantial company. 
He did not want the Airport placed in the middle if they were not 
able to absorb the cost. 

Mr. Bouey said that Ghilotti is a substantial company. He said he 
did not want to mislead the Commission. This will be a tough 
contract as Ghilotti is not in the business to lose money. He said 
there is other construction going on at the Airport but all but one 
project will be closed down and all Airport construction inspectors 
and a couple of extra project managers will be assigned to watch this 
project night and day. He said it will be a fight but he feels 
Ghilotti 's attitude is good and they do not want to jeopardize their 
standing with the Airport or other public agencies. He said that 
Ghilotti does not like it but they are willing to stand behind their 
bid. 

Mr. Kirkley said that McGuire and Hester has also been very success- 
ful at the Airport, having completed five major projects. He said he 
has bid and managed all five of them and he is well aware of the 
inherent problems. His company just completed contract 788 which 
involved work on the dikes at the end of 28L and 28R. He said this 
contract had critical time constraints as both runways had to be shut 
down. He understands how important these schedules are and that is 
why he claims the Airport is not going to be served in this award. 
He did not feel there was any way a contractor could take a job and 
lose $650,000. All the profit and all the overhead is gone and these 
are things on which he felt the award should be based. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that since Ghilotti Brothers has 
completed six or seven jobs at the Airport he could not assume that 
they will not do a good job on this contract. He said he was in 
complete sympathy with Ghilotti and if it were his business he might 
arrive at another conclusion. 

Mr. Kirkley asked the Commission to take into consideration the fact 
that Ghilotti admitted they were $650,000 in error yet after several 



Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 12 



meetings with Airport staff they agreed to take the bid. He wanted 
to know why. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Kirkley if he ever made any bad bids 

Mr. Kirkley said he has and they were pulled. 

Commissioner Bernstein hoped that Ghilotti was substantial enough to 
withstand that kind of a loss. 

Mr. Bouey said that if there had been any way to let Ghilotti 
Brothers out of their bid he would have done so. 



6. Design Approval - Duty Free/In-Bond Fast Shop 

No. 86-0144 Resolution approving the redesign and 

authorizing construction of the Duty 
Free Fast Shop in the International 
Terminal . 



7. Authorization to Enter Into Month-To-Month Permit for Temporary 
Flower Sales in International Terminal 

No. 86-0145 Resolution authorizing month-to-month 

permit to Heller Roberts, Inc. for 
temporary flower sales on the arrival 
level of the International Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen said that this is requesting permission to issue a permit 
for a concession. He said a cart will be placed in the meeter/ 
greeter area of the International Terminal. He explained that 
although Duty Free has an exclusive right to sell flowers they do not 
object to this and signed a letter on May 2 waiving any and all 
rights to sell flowers from a cart. He said he would like to try 
this for six months. 



8. Modification of Professional Services Agreement: 
Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. 
Roofing Consultant - $18,500 

No. 86-0146 Resolution approving Modification No. 

1 of Agreement with roofing consultant 
to inspect and recommend corrective 
work for deficiencies in Boarding Area 
'D' roof. Consultant's fees will be 
charged to Contractor. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the roof no longer leaks but the problem Is 
that when Boarding Area 'D' was being built the roof became soaked 
and rainwater is trapped in there. He said that the contractor has 
not been able to sort out this problem. He said that before the 
$100,000 is released to the contractor he would like this resolved. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
explained that the consultant has an infra-red device that detects 
moisture without penetrating the roof. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was no one on staff who was 
qualified to do this type of work. 

Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 13 



Mr. Yuen said this work requires a special infra-red instrument. He 
added that the $18,000 will not be charged to the Airport, it will be 
charged to tne contractor. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that Commissioner Stephens asked why we 
were amending our contract with them and paying the consultant direct. 

Mr. Yuen responded that it was because we do not want the contractor 
to hire his own consultant to tell us what to do. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked why we couldn't have the contractor hire 
this consultant. 

Mr. Yuen responded that he did not want the contractor to sign the 
check to the consultant. He said he wants to be able to control the 
consultant. The contractor is willing to hire this consultant but 
since we have a contract with them we would rather hire him so that 
the Airport would retain control. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if there is anything in writing 
indicating that the contractor will reimburse the Airport for this 
work . 

Mr. Yuen responded that this was agreed upon in a letter. He 
explained that the Airport is holding $100,000 of the contractor's 
money from which the $18,000 will be deducted. 



I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTING ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Retirement Resolution - Francis C. Capone 
No. 86-0141 

10. Contract 1013R, Change Order Approval 

No. 86-0147 Commission Resolution approving 

necessary changes to Contract 1013R, 
Computerized Parking Control System, 
also approving improved data trans- 
mission technology at lower cost to 
SFIA. 

Commissioner Goosby asked when this would be finished. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it will be completed on August 11. 



11. Tenant Improvement: UAL-M0C Building 84 

Modification to Support Engine Overhaul Stands 
T-3126 - $135,000 - No Cost to City 

No. 86-0148 



Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 14 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:00 AM to go into closed session. 



Jeafri Caramatti 
Co/rimi ssion Secretary 




Minutes, June 17, 1986 Page 15 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DQCUl 

SEP 2 9 1386 

PMRI.IO I IBRADV 



MINUTES 



JULY 15, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEINJ 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

July 15, 1986 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM H T LE NUMBER PAGE 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 4 

B. ROLL CALL: 4 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Special Meeting of April 22 
Regular Meetings of June 3, 
and June 17, 1986 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. United Airlines Coge^eration 

Facility 86-0153 

2. Authorization to Hold a Pre- 
8 i d Conference: Cigarette 
Vending Machines in the Inter- 
national Terminal 86-0154 

3. Resolution Authorizing Reimburse- 
ment - Northwest Airlines, Inc. 86-0155 

4. Award of Professional Service 
Contract for Construction 
Material Testing Services to 
Signet Testing Laboratories, Inc. - 
$37,000 86-0156 

5. Amendment to Signet Testing 
Laboratories Contract for 
Construction Materials Testing 
for the South Terminal Moderni- 

zarlon and Replacement Projects 86-0157 

6. Approval of Art Purchases for 
Boarding Area 'B', and Public 

Lounge at Hub of North Terminal 86-0158 



CONSENT CALEN0AR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

7. Retirement Resolution: 

James Bilk 86-0159 



8. 



Renew Howard Friedman s 

Professional Services Contract 

for Fiscal Year 1986-87 at No 

Additional Cost. Contract 

Amendment Extends Term of 

Contract to June 30, 1987 86-0160 



Statistical Adjustment for 
1985-86 - Joint Use Bil 1 ings 
under Lease and Use Agree- 
ment 



86-0161 



10. 



Statistical Adjustment for 
1985-86 - Joint Use Bi 1 1 ings 
under Lease and Use Agree- 
ment 



16-016; 



11 



Statistical Adjustment for 
1985-86 - Joint Use B ; l 1 ings 
under Lease and Use Agree- 
ment 



86-0153 



12. 



13. 



Award of Contract No. 1728: 
Repair of Timber Trestles at 
Drainage Pump Station No. 2 



86-0164 



Type II Modifications for 

Two South Terminal Complex 86-0165 

Construction Contracts 86-0166 



14. 



Award of Airport Cont r act 
No. 1727: Emergency Pave- 
ment Repairs 1986-87 



86-0167 



15, 



Airport Contract No. 1632: 
Emergency Roofing Repairs - 
Modification No. 1 (Type 2) 
Ex tens ion of Ti me 



86-0i68 



16 



Airport Contract No. 1568R: 
Paving the Center Area of 
Garage - Modification No. 
(Type 2) 



86-0159 



17 



Rejection of Bids and Author- 
ization to Re-Bid Airport 
Contract No. 1735: Broken 
and Damaged Glass Replacement 
International Terminal 



86-0170 



Request for Approval of Travel/ 
Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 86-0171 



PUBLIC HEARING: 



19. 



Amendment to Rules and 
Regulations. . . 
A court reporters trans- 
cript is attached. 



Minutes. July 15, 1986, Page 2 



CORRESPONDENCE 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 4 

9 

J. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 9 



Minutes, July 15, 1986, Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

July 15. 1986 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris 8ernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougaraki s 

Don Richards Stephens arrived at 
9:07 AM 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the following meetings were adopted by order of the 
Commission President: 

No. 86-0150 Special Meeting of April 22, 1986 

No. 86-0151 Regular Meetings of June 3; and, 

No. 86-0152 June 17, 1986 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting recessed at 9:03 AM to go into dosed session and reconvened 
at 9:33 AM. 



Minutes, July 15, 1986. Page 4 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

7fta following items were unanimously adopted. 

1. United Airlines Cogeneration Facility 

No. 36-0153 Resolution approving; (a) lease with 

PG&E for installation of towers and 
cable for transmission of electrical 
energy from United's Cogeneration 
Facility to PG&E's facility; <b> 
agreement with United for provision of 
power to Airport from Cogeneration 
Facility when PG&E is incapable of 
providing power; and (c) concession 
agreement whereby United will make 
monthly payments to the Airport from 
congeneration revenue. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that this item has come before 
the Commission on a number of occasions. Mr. Bouey and his staff 
have finally been able to work out the appropriate arrangements with 
United Air Lines. He said that the resolution contains an agreement 
with PG&E to install some towers and cable to the United Cogeneration 
facility; an agreement with United Air Lines to provide for emergency 
power to the Airport, and, a provision for concession payments to the 
Airport amounting to $6-million over the life of the agreement. 



Authorization to Hold a Pre-Bid Conference: 

Cigarette Vending Machines in the International Terminal 

No. 86-0154 Resolution to authorize the Director 

to hold a pre-bid conference to 
solicit input for and interest in the 
lease for Cigarettes Vending Sales in 
the International Terminal. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked why it was necessary to hold a pre-bid 
conference rather than go directly to a bid. 

Mr. Tjrpen responded that it is always best to hold a pre-bid 
cor,fe r en;e to let prospective bidders air their views. 



The following item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

3. Resolution Authorizing Reimbursement - Northwest Airlines. Inc. 

No. 86-0155 Resolution authorizing reimbursement 

to Northwest Airlines, Inc. for work 
performed on behalf of the Airport on 
the fourth floor of the International 
Termi nal Bui ldi ng . 

Mr. Turpen said that this item relates to the Commission's previous 
approval of Northwest's VIP room In the South Connector. The 
resolution should read $103,462.00 rather than $118,462.00. 



Minutes. July 15. 1986, Page 5 



The following Items were unanimously adopted. 

4. Award of Professional Services Contract for Construction Materia' 
Testing Services to Signet Testing Laboratories, Inc. - $37,000. 



No. 86-0156 



Resolution awarding professional 
services contract to Signet Testing 
Laboratories, Inc. to supplement City 
Lab's testing services. 



Amendment to Signet Testing Laboratories' Contract for Construction 
Materials Testing for the South Terminal Modernization and Replace- 
ment Projects 

No. 86-0157 Amendment is to: (1) increase scope 

of work to include testing services 
for Phase III projects; (2) extend 
contract termination date to July 1, 
1988; and, (3) provide final phase 
funding not-to-exceed $96,000 

Mr. Turpen said that this is the final phase for materials testing 
for the South Terminal Modernization, Boarding area 'C and related 
modernization of that portion of the terminal. He said that this 
will be the last of the materials testing contracts for the moderni- 
zation program. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the Commission shouldn't be receiving 
specifications for this. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
responded that this is for testing the material that the contractor 
is furnishing. He explained that when welding is done at a job site, 
for example, the metals, steel structure and concrete used by the 
contractor are tested. 



Approval of Art Purchase for Boarding Area 'B', and Public Lounge at 
Hub of North Terminal 



No. 86-0158 



Metal wal 1 mural by 

Tony Berlant $100,000 

Bronze and granite sculpture 

by Jack Zajac 18,000 

Copper and glass sculpture by 

Howard Ben Tre 25 .000 

Concrete, marble, copper and 

glass sculpture by Fran Martin 6,500 
Oil on canvas painting by Robert 

Ramirez ". . . 3,500 

Acrylic and sand painting by 

Wade Hoefer 4,500 

Acrylic and polymer painting by 

Leslie Lerner 4.000 

01 1 and wax pai nting by 

Michael Dvortcsak 6,500 

Mixed media on canvas painting 

by Raymond Saunders 20,000 



Minutes. July 15, 1986, Page 6 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

7. Retirement Resolution: 
James Bilk. 

No. 86-0159 



Renew Howard Fr'edman's Professional Services Contract for Fiscal 
Year 1986-87 at No Additional Cost. Contract Amendment Extends Term 
of Contract to June 30, 1987 

No. 86-0150 



Statistical Adjustment 1985-86 - Joint Use Billings under Lease and 
Use Agreement 

No. 86-0161 Resolution adjusting 1985-86 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline - Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Total Air, Inc. 



10. Statistical Adjustment 1985-86 - Joint Use Billings under Lease and 
Use Agreement 

No 86-0162 Resolution adjusting 1985-86 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline - Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Trans International 
Airlines, Inc . 



Statistical Adjustment 1986-87 - Joint Use Billings under Lease and 
Use Agreement 

No. 86-9163 Resolution adjusting 1986-87 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline - Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Cathay Pacific Airways, 
Ltd. 



2. Award of Contract No. 1728: 

Repair of Timber Trestles at Drainage Pump Station No. 2 

No. 86-0164 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1728 

to Alan R. Barreca, Inc. in the amount 
of $46,000. Two bids were received on 
June 26, 1986 ranging from $46,000 to 
$86,700. 



Minutes, July 15. 1986, Page 7 



13. Type II Modifications for Two South Terminal Complex Construction 
Contracts 

No. 86-0165 Contract 1410ABCD - 

South Terminal Renovation - 

Phase I $91 ,902.55 

No. 86-0166 Contract 1410EF - 

South Terminal Renovation - 

Phase II $28,848.00 



4. Award of Airport Contract No. 1727: 
Emergency Pavement Repairs 1986-87 

No. 86-0167 Resolution awarding Cont-act 1727 to 

Ghilotti Bros, in the amount of 
$112,850. Three bids were received on 
June 27, 1986 ranging from $112,850 to 
$290,180. 



5. Airport Contract No. 1632: 

Emergency Roofing Repairs - Modification No. 1 ( T ype 2) 
Extension of Time 

No. 86-0169 Resolution approving contract modifi- 

cation extending the completion date 
from June 30, 1986 to September 28, 
1986. This contract provides for roof 
repairs on an as-needed basis. 



6. Airport Contract No. 1568R: 

Paving the Center Area of Garage - Modification No. 1 (Type 2) 

No. 86-0169 Resolution approving contract 

modification In amount of $12,127 for 
additional work due to unstable 
subsoi 1 . 



17. Rejection of Bids and Authorization to Re-Bid Airport Contract 
No. 1735 - 
Broken and Damaged Glass Replacement, International Terminal 

No. 86-0170 Resolution rejecting single bid for 

Contract No. 1735. and authorizing the 
Director of Airports to re-advertise 
and call for bids when ready. This 
bid was substantially over budget. 



18. Request for Approval of Travel /Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 86-0171 



Minutes, July 15. 1986. Page 8 



G. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing was convened at 9:45 AM and adjourned at 11:02 AM, 
there being no further testimony from the public. 

A court reporter's transcript of the following item is attached. 

19. Amendment to Rules and Regulations 

Public Hearing regarding proposed 
amendments to the Airport's Rules and 
Regulations governing ground trans- 
portation operations . 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



J. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 11:02 AM to go into closed session. 



Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes. July 15. 1986. Page 9 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 



MEETING OF THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



0O0 



SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL, ROOM 282 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



Tuesday, July 15, 1986, 9:00 a.m. 



r^RTiriFf) flOP'-' 



Lili; i if il 



oOo 



Taken Before CHARLOTTE CERVANTEZ, Notary Public 

County of Alameda, State of California 

C.S.R. LICENSE No. 4486 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 
20993 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 222 
Hayward, California 94541 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 481-8009 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS 

HONORABLE MORRIS BERNSTEIN, President 

HONORABLE DR. Z.L. GOOSBY, Comir.issioner 

HONORABLE J. EDWARD FLEISHELL, Commissioner 

HONORABLE ATHENA TSOL'GARAK I S , Commissioner 

HONORABLE DON RICHARDS STEPHENS, Commissioner 

LOUIS A. TURPEN, Director of Airports 

DONALD GARIBALDI, Airport General Counsel 

JEAN CARAMATTI, Airports Commission Secretary 

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING 



Tuesday , 


July 15, 


1936 




AUDIENCE SPEAKERS 






PAGE 


Alfred Arnaud 






4 


Martin Bloom 






5 


Howard Conklin 






11 


Robert Leach 






14 


Steve Leonoudakis 






15 


Nancy Lenvin 






19 


John Twichell 






20 


Nancy Lenvin 






27 


Clifford Orloff 






31 


Andy De Paule 






33 


Dana Reed 






35 


Jim Raine 






37 


Tony Ruiz 






39 


Sheldon Fein 






50 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



b 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



















3 


AMEND 


•1ENT 


TO 


RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING 








GROUND 


TRA 


NSPORTATION 


OPERATIONS 










? 


U B 


L 


I C H E A 


RING 








MS . 


C ARAM AT 


TI : 


Ame n dine r. t 


to rules and 


regu 


lations . 


MP . 


BE?? 


JSTE 


IN: 


This will 


be a Dubiic 1 


rearing 


that 



we will hold today where we have -- I have some requests from 
the people in the audience, and I'm going to call on them in 
al phabet ical order -- 

MR. TURPEN: Excuse me, sir -- 

MR. BERNSTEIN: -- as usual. 

Where is Al Arnaud -- 

MR. TURPEN: Ladies and gentlemen, the Commission is 
continuing the public hearing which started some -- I've 
forgotten when the last one was -- but a continuation of the 
last public hearing. The Commission intends to conclude the 
Public Hearing on the proposed Ground Transportation Rules 
today . 

The Commission will take your testimony as well as 
the recommendations of staff under advisement, and the 
Commission intends to make a decision, if it's ready to, at the 
first -- at its first meeting in August, which will be the first 
Tuesday in August. So, therefore the Commission will not — 

Do not anticipate nor expect the Commission to make 
a decision today; the Commission will not. Typically the 
Commission's policies and procedures call for the comission to 
take these matters under advisement and make a decision at its 
next regular meeting. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 







MR. 


BERNSTEIN: 


I'd 


like to 


req 


uest 


that 


we 




4 


We've heard 


some 


of 


you betore, 


and if 


it ' s 


pos 


sible 


to 


have 


all 


new 


mater 1 a 


1 ; mo 


St 


of us up 


here, our ~ 


emor 


les 


aren ' t 


that bad 


that 


we car, 


' t re 


T.em 


cer what 


you 


s a i i t w 


o or 


three wee 


ks 


ago. 




So, 


1 n tne 


inter 


est 


of t i me 


and 


so tnat 


we 


get 


some c 


f 


these 





things resolved, I ask your indulgence, please give us whatever 
new information or new things that you tnink you have, so that 
we haven't neard it eight times over. 

Let ' s go, Al . 

MR. ARNAUD: Just cut my presentation snort oy 20 
minutes . 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Oh, no, no. I always like to hear 
you. Keep going. 

ALFRED APNAL'D 
MR. ARNAUD: My name is Alfred Arnaud, I represent 
Associated Limosine Operators of San Francisco. Commissioners, 
on June 25th of this year we forwarded to Mr. Turpen a letter 
j deliniating or comments and responses to tne proposed revised 



rules . We wou 


Id merely this morning ask that that letter be 


made a part of 


the record of these proceedings, and if any of 


the Commission 


members had any questions with reference to tne 


letter, we wou 


.d be prepared to answer them at this time. 


MR 


. FLEISHELL: No questions. 


DR 


. GOOSBY: I have no questions. 


MS 


. TSOUGAPAKIS: I have no questions. 


MR 


. BERNSTEIN: Don, do you have any? 


MR 


. GARIBALDI: No. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



415) 481-3009 



MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. You can come back, Al, 

if you can keep it that short. 

Mr. Martin Bloom from St. Louis representing 

Park 'N Fly and Metro. 

MARTIN 3 LOOM 

MR. BLOOM: Good morning, commissioners, my name is 
Martin Bloom -- 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Would you speak into the mike so 
they can near you. 

MR. BLOOM: My name is Martin Bloom, and I'm Board 
Chairman of Park 'N Fly, but this morning I represent all three 
off-airport parking operations. I may need more than three 
minutes because we have several subjects to talk about, all of 
wnich are new. I think that you have sheets from the people 
from the other two parking operators that would waive their tim< 
for me, so, if I can continue beyond the three minutes, you'll 
only hear from one of us. If not, the others would like to 

We have several problems witn the present scheme of 
these proposed regulations. We think that they result from som< 
very good intentions proposed by some problems, but every 
indication is that there were some hasty decisions made by your 
staff, and hopefully the Commission will have the judgment and 
good sense to rectify some of the hasty decisions. 

Over a month ago we sent a letter to the staff 
requesting data substantiating their claim that it was costing 
over $1 million a year to regulate our vehicles. We honestly 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



believe there's some funny bookkeeping going on. For whatever 
reason our letter has never been answered. We still don't have 
substantiation. We don't know how on earth the million dollars 
the being spent to regulate so few vehicles. 

We strongly suspect that w.nat tne staff is trying 
to do is to collect all of the expenses, for all of the police 
at all four curbs, from those of us that are only using a small 
portion of those curbs. And until sucn time as tne figures are 
made public as to where this million dollars is allegedly going 
I don't tnink tnat the scheme of an increased fee should oe 
approved. 

One of the other items tnat makes us believe that 
there's some funny bookkeeping going on is tnat we three 
operators sat down yesterday, aided up what we're paying the 
airport, and find that from only three operators we're paying 
the airport 52 percent of the dollars that you claim that you'r 
receiving from off-airport courtesy vehicles. 

Now, we've all spent some time on the curb watching 
tne courtesy vehicles, and I think it's obvious that we three 
operators probably represent no more than five or ten percent o 
the trips being made. Now, if we're paying 52 percent of the 
dollars, I strongly suspect that not everybody is paying, and 1 
fact we know that not everybody is paying. 

Our suggestion would be that before you increase th. 
fees for everybody, that the first step would be to collect wha 1 
you already have authorized from everybody; and what you already 
have authorized is S75 per month for hotel and motel and car 
rental courtesy cars, and $175 per month from parking courtesy 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



Now, I don't know that you have anything authorized 
for the off-airport limosine type shuttles, but they should be 
slipped into one of those two categories, whatever is 
appropriate. I think that if you find a way to Dlock the 
cracks, that you're going to collect a lot more money; and if we 
find a way to come up with some honest, straight numbers, you're 
going to find that after you collect all the money tnat you're 
entitled to, tnat you're going to be paying all of the expenses 
that actually relate to us. 

One other thing that we strenuously object to about 
the current scheme is that supposedly we're paying these 
expenses so that we can have some police out there maintaining 
law and order. Now, some of us are not abusing our privileges 
at the curb; some of us are stopping to drop off our passengers 
or to pick up passengers and leaving. Again, all you .nave to do 
is stand at the curb, and you'll find that many operators stop 
and wait so as to have a presence. 

Now, there's no reason for these other operators to 
wait at the curb. That curb is a long one. If they're really 
there to pick up passengers, there's eitner a passenger wnere 
they stop on the upper level; or if there's not, they ought to 
proceed to the other terminals. 

I don't know wny it is that Avis and Hertz and 
National and SuperShuttle are stopping and waiting five minutes, 
ten minutes, and I also don't know why it is that these highly 
paid policemen are not making them move on. We suggest that if 
you're asking us to pay money, that we should receive the 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



415) 481-8009 



service in return, to open up the curb. 

We have another strong ODjection to regulations 
which we're told is not going to be enforced, and tnat is the 
scheme in the regulations tnat there will be a ticket collection 
area, a holding area with a booth, and that tickets will be 
issued to all people that are going to pay. We will have to cue 
up in these lines at the booth so as to turn in the tickets. 

During the meetings with staff it's Deen pointed out 
that this would oe chaos; tnat instead of improving congestion, 
tnat we'll have tie-ups; that we'll have to wait in line five, 
ten, 15 minutes; that it will oe unfair and unnecessary. Staff 
has apparently agreed and said, okay, you're right, we aren't 
going to collect the tickets. But we want tnat provision in the 
regulations anyway just in case we nave to. 

Well, this is our only cr.ance to say to you this is 
wrong. If staff feels that tney don't need to collect the 
tickets, then we want tnat provision out of the regulations now. 
And if they ever feel that they need to collect the tickets, 
then they ought to cone be::re you, ask fur the right, and at 
the same time give us the right to come here and say why we 
think it might be wrong. 

One otner problem we have, and that is that the 
regulations currently do not apply to everybody as written. 
There are many people using that curb or many vehicles using 
that curb that are exempt from these regulations, specifically 
the on-airport parking lot vehicles and the on-airport car 
rental vehicles. 

Now, we're not advocating that these people pay the 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



fees, because we know that the two groups of vehicles are 
already paying sufficient fees through their companies. 
However, these regulations have certain strong limitations on 
the particular frequency of the vehicles. It purports to keep 
order at tne curb, and to that extent it should apply to all 
users. So, certain of tne vehicles should not be exempt from 
tnese regulations, and we strongly recommend that they oe 
included. 

Thank you. 

DR. GOOSBY: While you're there, Mr. Bloom. 

MR. BLOOM: Yes, sir. 

DR.. GOOSBY: Would you say that this is an accurate 
l 

f 1 g u r e , that for Park ' N Fly your actual revenues for ' 3 -4 ' ' 8 5 
are in the neighborhood of 523-, $24,000? 

MR. BLOOM: Right, sir, we paid twenty -- 

DR. GOOSBY: That's how much you paid tne airport? 

MR. BLOOM: Yes, sir. 

DR. GOOSBY: That's per year, for tne year? 

MR. BLOOM: Yes, sir. 

DR. GOOSBY: All right. And that's based upon ^5^9 
trips per month in that area. 

MR. BLOOM: That's correct, rougnly. 

DR. GOOSBY: Now, if these go into effect, if this 
rule change goes into effect, you anticipate having to pass -- 
you would try to pass this on to your people who park the cars 
in your lots, I assume. 

MR. BLOOM: I don't know if we could or not, sir. 

DR. GOOSBY: Well, how much would you, if you tried 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



415) 481-8009 



1 

2 

3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 
16 
17 
18 

1 9 

2 

21 
22 

23 
24 

25 

26 
27 
28 



10 

to pass on what you thought you could, how much more would you 
have to kick up your parking fee? Have you thought through 
that, your company? 

MR. BLOOM: No, we haven't. We are suDject to taxes 
from many organizations. Unfortunately every possiDle 
jurisdiction in which we do business feels that they can add 
so Tie thing, and then we can pass it on. 

The City of South San Francisco three years ago 
decreed that we pay four percent of our gross to them as a 
parking tax, and when we said that that wasn't right, tney said 
"pass it on." The Public Utilities Commission collects one 
percent of that portion of our gross that's attributed to the 
cost of transportation, and their attitude is "pass it on." And 
now the airport wants to raise fees and says "pass it on." 

We would agree with you that we ought to pay our 
fair share of your expenses. We have no problem with that. If 
we're not paying our fair snare, we'd like to oe snown some 
accurate figures that really show that we're not paying our fair 
I snare. Wr.er. we're shown accurate figures, if we're not caving 
our fair share, we will be happy to pay more as long as 
everyoocy pays a comparable amount. 

DR. GOOSBY: Okay. 

MR. BLOOM: Any other questions before I sit down? 

MR. FLEISHELL: No, sir. 

MR. BLOOM: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Bloom. When I get 
into trouble, I'll call you. 

Nicky Cheung? Is that it? 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



11 



tnank you 



Rent-a-Car 



MR. CHEUNG: Mr. Bloom has already spoken for us, 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Fine, thank you. 

Mr. Conklm, Howard Conklin, from the Alamo 

HOWARD CONKLIN 

MR. CONKLIN: Good morning, I'm here on behalf of 
Alamo Rent-a-Car, Howard Conklin, and we nave a few comments to 
make about the proposed regulation. I think Mr. Bloom nas done 
an articulate job in covering many of the concerns that we also 
have, and in particular we Delieve in paying a reasonable user 
fee to offset your cost. 

We are concerned about these cost projections, for 
example the annual expenses of upper and lower roadway costs 
of S94,000 would not be applicable because we're only permitted 
to use the one level. This figure alone on its face is wrong, 
oecause it includes the lower level, which we're not permitted 
to use. So, I think the cost projections are suspect, and I 
think a refinement of those numbers should be in hand oefore an> 
assessment of user fees can be made. 

We also would recommend that whatever fees that have 
to be recouped be done on a flat fee basis and apportioned among 
the users, to avoid this enforcement problem and tickets and 
whatever accounting procedures. It's an accounting nightmare tc 
do a per-trip basis at times, and I think that's what you will 
find. 

Some of our other observations are that we think 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



r 

i 
i 
















12 


these regu 


lations 


are 


designe 


d, and we encourage 


this ob 


j ective 


of reducin 


g congestion 


at the 


curb side. 


And app 


arent ly 




according 


to the A 


larao office 


, there are 


basical ] 


y 


two p 


eaks at 


the airpor 


t, aDOut 


11: 


00 to 3 


:00 and tnen 


at the 


e^ 


/ening 


hours 


about 7:30 


to 9:30 


And yet 


there is very, very 


1 


ittle 


pol ice 


activity o 


ut there 


to 


keep ve 


nicies movin 


a . 









I think that in effect will ease the congestion far 
more than this arbitrary five-minute rule, tnat you cannot have 
vehicles corr.e on airport within a five-minute period -- 
five-minute interval of eacn other. And I'll tell you the 
problem with that regulation is that Alamo, like many other 
users, nave groups arriving on the airport at one time, tour 
groups maybe numbering thirty to sixty to one hundred. 

To impose the five-minute rule and say, well, we 
know you have a crowd of people waiting, but we're not going to 
let you get there to pick them up... so we'll nave a curb side 
congestion of all these people standing around in peak periods 
if we abide by that five-minute rule. 

Normally the Alamo buses will not be there every 
five minutes, but when there are people there, and there's a 
demand for oases, which only hold about 14 people, we nave to 
get tne buses on airport as quickly as possible. And to impose 
a five-minute interval does not help tne problem. 

The last comment is that I think if we are going to 
pay for costs, I would recommend that "A" the signage be 
improved; I've been through airports throughout the country 
because Alamo is concerned about our relationship with the 
airport. This is one of the only airport in the country to my 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



13 

knowledge that that the passengers have to go upstairs to board 
the courtesy vehicles to get off airport. 

Most times they are accustomed to walking out the 
baggage exit doors and looking for courtesy vehicles. So, I 
think if we are going to pay reasonable fees, I'm requesting at 
this point that the signage De improved for the traveling 
public, so that they are directed upstairs to board the 
vehicles . 

Over all I think Mr. Turpen should oe commended for 
an effort to improve things. I think they just need a little 
more refinement before they're imposed. 

Thank you for your time. 

DR. GOOSBY: You think that the staging area would 
help your operation, keep the cost down? To have the staging 
area where the buses park and stay, instead of having to go off 
and back on the airport:? 

MR. CONKLIN: A staging area might help, but I think 
more importantly it would be on-sight supervision by traffic 
police. I think that would oe the key and not a holding area, 
because if you have a holding area, and you still have curb 
congestion, you're still going to require vehicles to wait and 
wait and wait for the congestion to be removed. So, I think the 
key to keeping traffic flowing is -- especially during these two 
peaks as I've just enumerated -- to keep human beings out there 
control that problem. 

I'll give you an example of tying up curb space. 
When I arrived yesterday, the Avis bus was there, and the driver 
actually stopped his bus to collect everyone's contract to find 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



415) 481-8009 



14 

out wnere they were going to. And this took about two minutes. 
He could have done that when he arrived at the gate to his 
facility. Instead he took up valuable curb space to collect 
each and every ticket. And there was absolutely no one there to 
say "move on" or "get back to your driver's seat where you're 
supposed to be and stop collecting your contracts." 

So, that's an illustration of a policing effort that 
really is required. 

DR. GOOSBY: Thank you. 

MR. CONKLIN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Anything? 

Mr. Ira Kaufman. 

MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Commissioners, I yield my 
time to Howard Conklin. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Ail right, thank you. 

Rooert L-e-v-c-o; is that it? 

MR. LEACH: Leach, L-e-a-c-h. Rooert Leach. 

R03ERT LEACH 



MR. LEACH: My name is Robert Leacn, I own 
Bob Leacn' s Auto Rental S.F.O. I've been coming to the airport 
for 27 years now. I think you people are setting ap a toll 
authority; I question the legality of setting it up"without 
including the general public. They're the biggest users of the 
airport. So, I think they should be included. If you want to 
have a toll gate, everyone pays. Mothers coming to pick up 
their daughters, laundry trucks, vehicles of all types. Make it 
general. I think that if you're singling out certain parties, I 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



15 

doubt if it's legal. Thank you, sirs. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Interesting. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: We have a supplementary entry, 
Steve Leonoudakis. You know, you came in late; that should be 
held as a late fee. 

MR. LEONOUDAKIS: I'm ready to pay. 



STEVE LEONOUDAKIS 

Steve Leonoudakis, for the record, attorney for 
SEO Airporter. We recently went through several days of 
nearings before the Public Utilities Commission relating to 
certain definitions and activities of the SuperShuttle operators 
in this area of the State of California. I'd like to call your 
attention to a term that is I think misused by tne airport 
staff, and they refer to van operators who are coming onto the 
airport as "on demand operators." 

They are not, within tne definitions used by the 
Public Utilities Commission, "on demand operators." They're on 
call. And I respectfully suggest that tne staff and tne 
Commission instruct the staff to strike the word "on demand" as 
it refers to the operation to on-call operators; and the reason 
is very simple: In the State of California the operation of the 
taxi services in the various municipalities, that area of 
operation is preempted by the cities and the counties within the 
State of California. 

Now, if you're going to allow a service to become 
"on demand" at the airport for example, one might get the idea 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



16 

that anybody could be in any position they wanted to be, and 
they are then an on demand operator and can pick up anybody they 
want whenever they want. 

To give you an example of that situation in 
San Francisco, SuperShuttle cruises all of the hotels. They go 
around tne taxicabs and cruise. And if anybody is standing at 
the curb, just tne mere presence of that vehicle becomes a form 
of solicitation. Now, that isn't on demand. 

Now, According to the P.U.C. rules, if you're on 
call, you have a reason to be in front of a given place because 
someone had called you by ©rearrangement. That's "on call." 
Now, you have no rignt to be there otherwise. That is to say, 
if they're going to convert these vehicles into taxicabs, 
they're violating the jurisdiction of the city and county, who 
has control over the cab operation. 

They can't come to my scheduled step, for example -- 
and which they do, they shadow our schedule throughout tne city, 
and if anybody's standing at the cutd waiting for the airporter 
out, they'll swoop in and in effect hustle them, see? That 
is -- They're not even supposed to be there unless they've had 
a call some three hours before or on call and prearranged. 

Now, I don't want to belabor the point, but I do 
this simply because in the regulation as promulgated, we get to 
the definitions here of what is going to be permitted in 
"prearranged" -- and I won't go through all of them, but I want 
to call your attention to the one I think that ought to be taken 
out of there. This is on page 2, and it's the second paragraph, 
and it says "For the purpose of the rules, prearranged shall 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



I 1 7 

I 

1 mean and include the 'flagging down'" quote "by a passenger of a 

2 commercial ground transportation vehicle for the purpose of 

3 securing transportation." 
Now, if you're going to allow that, you're in effect 

saying they can operate as a taxi cab, neither the P.U.C. nor 

anyone else, Police Department of San Francisco, is ever going 

to allow them to operate like taxicabs. They shouldn't be 

allowed to operate as taxicabs. Because you have this situation 

i durinc the peak oeriod: The shuttle van knows when the crowds 
! " 

10 are there, and all they have to do then is leave the gate, so to 

11 J speak -- and I'll talk about the gate later -- and then start to 

12 I pass along the roadway. And anybody that raises their arm then 
L3 is asking for a service like a taxi ca'o. And I say that that 

14 paragraph should be stricken, they should never be allowed -- 

15 DR. GOOSBY: You're saying that's on demand. 

16 MR. LEONOUDAKIS: That's rignt. 

17 DR. GOOSBY: You interpret that person's calling 

18 them as on demand. 

19 MR. LEONOUDAKIS: On demand, yeah. 

20 DR. GOOSBY: ... rather than being on call as having 

21 gotten a prearranged assignment, right? 

22 MR. LEONOUDAKIS: That's correct, right. 

23 The other point we wish to make is with reference to 

24 the procedure that would be implemented by the director. At 

25 page 6 it says the director of the airports is authorized, and I 

26 really urge... from what our investigation revealed, 

27 SuperShuttle was making as many as 36,000 loops a month on the 

28 upper roadway, as many as and possibly even more than. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 

9 
10 

11 
12 

13 
14 

15 
16 
17 
18 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

26 
27 

28 



The only way you're going to control that excessive j 
looping, you can't have an honor system in this business, it 
isn't going to work. We've had plenty of experience when it 
comes to that approacn to a resolution of the problem. 

Tne only way it's going to work is if you implement 
on the effective date of September the 8th the program whereby 
the director actually issues the permit tickets. They're going 
to use 36,000 loops in a month? They should have 36,000 
tickets. And when they come onto the airport, tney surrender 
one ticket — except for the first fifty. Tne implementation of 
this cart of the program is very, very simple. Tne airport has 
had ten years of experience in handling the taxicab operation, 
and it works as smooth as velvet, ar.d it would work tne same way 
with reference to this operation. 

MR. BERNSTEIN": First time I ever heard you say 
that. 

MR. LEONOUDAKIS : We 1 1 , sir, as you grow older you 
get wiser. 

Tne other thing we wanted to say is: Kith waybills, 
if you have a radio communication, you know, it's acceptable, 
and these waybill entries should be made prior to the vehicle 
entering the airport. Because what we saw happening in our 
investigation was that a bus or a van would stop, and there are 
a group of people there, and he pretends, you know, to be having 
happy conversation, and he's hustling them all the time. 

He'll say "Well, you're going to the Lombard area, 
you're going to Fisherman's Wharf?" He'll grab the radio and 
call into the radio dispatch person, who then says we've got six 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



415) 481-8009 



19 

people standing wherever they are, and to please send a vehicle 
forthwith. They will ]ust avoid the section here on the 
waybill. Thank you for the opportunity. 

Nice to see you, Corrunissior.er Stephens. 

MR. STEPHEN'S: Tnank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: We missed you at the last few 
mee tings . 

MR. LEONOUDAKIS: I took five days off. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thanks. 

Nancy Lenvin of SuperShuttle, Ground Transportation. 
Nancy, where are you? 

NANCY LENVIN 

MS. LENVIN: Good morning, Mr. President, members of 
the Commission; my name's is Nancy Lenvin. 

I represent SuperShuttle. Because of the policy 
considerations and the concerns raised by yourself and your 
staff, we had hired Mr. John Twichell of John Twichell and 
Associates, to conduct a survey of not only vehicle operation at 



the 


airport 


but 


of our pa 


ssengers . 


















I ' ve 


asked Mr 


. Twichell, 


who 


is the former 


head 


of 


the 


City 


Pi 


annir 


g Department's transp 


ortation section, 


pr lor 


to 


becomi ng 


president of his 


own company 


, to 


be here with 


me 


th 


is 


morn ing . 


S 


o, if 


we could 


join those 


two 


speakers , 








Mr. 


Presi 


dent, I 


would like Mr. Twich 


ell 


to describe th 


e 






findings 


of 


his 


study regarding this 


operation . 














You 


have been 


given summaries 


of his report 














Mr. 


Twichell? 















BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



20 

JOHN TWICHELL 

MR. TWICHELL: Thank you. My name is John Twicnell. 
In view of some of the comments of the previous speaker, I think 
it's particularly apropos that we talk about these surveys right 
now. 

What I conducted for SuperShuttle was two separate 
surveys; one survey was of the number of trips by SuperShuttle 
! past the international terminal on an average weekday, which was 
a Wednesday. What we did witn this survey was take the 16-hour 
day that the airport staff has used, take the same day of tne 
week that the airport staff used in its last survey -- which was 
in January, about six months ago -- conduct our own survey in 
15-minute blocks throughout the 16-hour day, of the time e^ch 
vehicle passed, the number of the vehicle, its destination, and 
the number of passengers. 

Basically what that survey showed is that on this 
full Wednesday, during tne 16-hour day as the airport has 
defined it, there were 458 SuperShuttle vehicles pass the 
international terminal. Now, that's a slight increase from the 
number that was in January. That's an average of 29 vehicles 
per hour. 

During the course of the day, the peak for one 
particular hour was 38 vehicles. That number, I mean, you can 
extrapolate that out on a monthly basis, obviously that's 
nowhere near 36,000. There was no pattern of looping, because 
we took down the numbers of the vehicles as they went by, so 
that it would be rather obvious that the same vehicle went 
around several times. The drivers obviously were not informed 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 

25 
26 
27 
28 



21 

of tne survey -- that would, you know, ruin the whole thing. 

As to the issue of traffic congestion, I mean 
sometimes traffic congestion is in the eye of the beholder; but 
if you want to define "traffic congestion" as vehicles being 
held up in tne course of passing through tne upper level area, 
there was no significant traffic congestion during the 16 hours 
of that day. 

There was one significant thing which we wanted to 
bring to your attention and that had to do with tne fact tnat 
[ tne four major rental car operators, Hertz, Avis, National and 
Budget, all are using full-size buses for their operation now, 
. rather than minibuses or vans. Because of tne size, carrying 
[ capacity, you're talking about a forty-person bus rather than a 
seven-person van, because of the size and tne awkward 
maneuverability, a vehicle of that size has the potential for 
causing considerably more congestion, i.e. in its getting in ar.d 
out of traffic, than a about van or minibus would. 

I want to get on to the second survey, and that was 
during tne full week in June we did a survey of SuperShuttle 
passengers. We received a total of 1400 approximately responses 
to tnat, which is about 15 percent of a week's business. 
There's some very interesting results in there, because there's 
some of this information, I think, is of use to the Commission 
in understanding who uses SuperShuttle. That is, 62 percent of 
the trips were for pleasure rather than business. The majority 
of people using SuperShuttle are people going from their home, 
airport, taking a trip, coming home again. They're non-business 
trips . 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



22 

Secondly, which is a very important question, and 
that was: What mode of travel did they use back and forth to 
the airport before they used SuperShutt le? The single mode used 
most often was getting dropped off at tne airport or picked up. 
In other words, an auto trio out to the airport generated no 
revenue whatsoever for the airport but only generated congestion 
out there. 

If you take that 31 percent and extrapolate it out 
over a month, what this means is SuperShuttle has now reduced 
tne number of auto trips to tne airport 13,000 a month. Now, 
tnose are 13,000 trips that were formerly made witn no income 
whatsoever but with congestion being generated out there. So, I 
think that's a particularly important point in tne course of 
saying, "Well, what does SuperShuttle do?" Essentially what it 
is doing, in addition to spreading out where their business 
comes from, it's reducing the amount of congestion at tne 
airport . 

Now, beyond this there's one other comment I want to 
make and that is that we had in this survey -- and there's a 
copy of it attached -- we asked a complaint question; so, if 
people had complaints, they wanted to see some improvements in 
the service, the public had the opportunity to do that. 

The overwhelming answer to that question was very 
positive and very enthusiastic about the service. People were 
given an opportunity to complain and five-sixths of the people 
who responded to that responded in a very positive manner. I 
would have to say that indicates to me that the public in 
general really likes the service and are really happy with it. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



I 

1 And again the point, the most interesting aspect of this, is the 

2 fact that most of their business is coming from people who 

3 formerly either drove to the airport or were driven to the 

4 airport. I think that's particularly important. Unless there's 

5 some questions I'll -- 

6 MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I have a question. 

7 MR. TWICHELL: Yeah. 

8 MS. TSOUGARAKIS: You said there was no pattern of 

9 I looping. How many vans does SuperShuttle drive in 

10 San Francisco? 

1 1 MS. LENVIN: There are 40 at the present time in the 

12 I fleet, 
i 

13 MS. TSOUGARAKIS: And if they're averaging 29 loops 

14 per hour -- 

15 MR. TWICHELL: Mo. There's a total 453 trips. 

16 Right? During the day. 

17 MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I understand 

18 MR. TWICHELL: That averages 29 an hour. 
15 MS. TSOUGARAKIS: And peaked at 38. 

20 MR. TWICHELL: Right. Now, of tnose vans coming 

21 from -- What, there's five separate areas? 

22 MS. LENVIN: (Nods head affirmatively.) 

23 MR. TWICHELL: They come from separate areas of the 

24 City, and they do have on the van itself -- 

25 MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I understand that, I understand 

26 that. 

27 MR. TWICHELL: -- the destination of where they're 

28 coming out, where they're going -- 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



24 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I understand that. My question 
is: I don't see how there cannot be looping, because you can't 
have -- In other words, if so many are averaging per hour, 
that's almost 30 per hour, if there are 30 per hour out there, 
they can't be here in the City, so there must be some looping 
going on. 

MR. TWICHELL: Well, my definition of "looping" is 
that a venicle goes out to the airport, drops passengers off, 
and circles before they leave it. Right? 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Exactly. That's what I'm saying 
too . 

MR. TWICHELL: Okay. Now, the indications -- 
because what we did with this is we took down the numbers of the 
vehicles as they passed -- was that vehicles were going out to 
the airport, dropping people off, picking up, leaving. There 
was no more than, at one time, one circle around by a particular 
vehicle. A vehicle came out -- 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yeah, but I don't see how such a 
high percentage, 75 percent of the vehicles that belong to 
SuperShuttle, could be in the airport in a one-hour period. And 
especially if you're at thirty-eight. I mean that's what I 
don ' t -- 

In other words, what are the statistics on the 
number of looping vehicles? You must have had those numbers, 
and you didn't -- you didn't -- All you said was that it wasn't 
significant. Is there no looping? 

MS. LENVIN: There was no looping that day, right? 
Or there were one or two? 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



25 



MR. TWICHELL: Okay, now, if -- let me answer it 
this way: The vehicle says "airport", right? They're going to 
the airport? What happens is the vehicle goes out there, drops 
people off, goes through a separate staging area which 
SuperShuttle has, comes back once in order to pick people up, 
and then goes to their destination. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: So, it loops once. Every vehicle 
loops once. It comes back around once. It goes back to the 
international -- 

MS. LENVIN: It passes the international terminal 
twice . 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Twice. 

MR. TWICHELL: Right. 

MS. LENVIN: Once to drop off, once to pick up. 

MR. TWICHELL: Yes, once out and then -- 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: All right. 

MR. TWICHELL: You know, essentially what you're 
doing is the same thing as a cab, you go once out, once back 
into the City. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: So, I didn't understand that. 

MR. TWICHELL: Right. Looping — 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: That's all I wanted to know, thank 



you 



questions? 



MR. TWICHELL: Okay, do you have some other 



MR. BERNSTEIN: I don't have any questions, I just 
have a comment to this line. Speaking for myself, and having 
the indulgence of the Commission, we're not really trying to 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 









26 


limit -- 


we ' re not trying 


to discuss and decide the type of 


vehicle 


or transportation. 








What we 're try 


ing to 


do, two things; one, to control 


congest! 


on, and to see if 


we can ' 


t eliminate it as much as 


possible 


with a facility that doesn't lend itself very well to 


that sor 


t of thing; and two, to c 


et seme additional revenue to 


help pay 


for the increasin 


g expenses. I'm speaking again, I 


hope, for the Commission, 


and we ' 


re just not interested in 


getting 


more money for the 


sake c 


f more money and adding it to 


the trea 


sury. But I just 


— and 


I must say, that there were 


exceptions . 








We haven't heard frorr 


anyone as to how they think 


ana how 


they would nelp us 


r e s o 1 \ 


e the problem. Frankly we know 


the p r o b 


lem, we know the p 


rob lem. 






MR. TWICHELL: 


Right . 






MR. BERNSTEIN: 


But this thing doesn't help me at 


all. 










Just one other 


thing , 


and then I'll let you go back 


at bat. 


You mentioned something 


about these pleasure trips. 


Will you 


show me the idiot 


that d 


rives out to the airport and 


back on 


pleasure or for pi 


easure? 


The pleasure trips? 



DR. GOOSBY: He means vacation. 

MR. TWICHELL: I mean vacation. In other words, if 
you drive out to tne airport to get on a plane and go for a 
non-business trip -- 

MR. TUPPEN: Palm Springs. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: I've been going out there for 40 
years and I'm trying to find some pleasure yet. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



27 



1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

8 
9 

10 
11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



MR. TWICHELL: Let me go back to the question about 
the rates. What has seemed to have happened here is there were 
two different things all mushed together. There's a lot of 
comments that have been made about traffic congestion and 
there's comments been made about rates and what ought to be 
paid . 

What I basically have tried to do here with these 

surveys is take out the traffic congestion issue, look at it as 

a separate issue and say, look, here are the facts, here are the 
I 

numbers, here's what's going on. From a professional point of 
, view, I have one recommendation about traffic congestion, and 
that is whether you should consider talking to your parking 
rental people about using smaller vehicles. Other than that, I 
don't see frankly a traffic congestion issue here. 

Now, in terms of rates, I'll turn the floor back to 
Miss Lenvin, and she will specifically answer your question. 

MP. TURPEN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you very much. 

NANCY LENVIN 

MS. LENVIN: Thank you. 

Point well taken, Mr. President, what we were trying 
to do is to understand the policy considerations, what you were 
trying to achieve by this system of regulation which includes 
both rules and a fee structure. 

What Mr. Twichell's survey tells us is that 
understanding that SuperShuttle works only on the upper deck is 
that potentially we are removing 7000 vehicles a month from your 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



1 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

9 

10 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
15 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 

25 

26 
27 
28 



29 

We as an operator, SuperShuttle as an operator, is 
paying for something that is a privilege that has various 
components to operate at the airport. It is simply not fair to 
charge them in and out and more than a taxi cab pays departing 
with a 31 dollar fare. 

Based on our survey and based on this conceptual 
look -- because what you can tell from some of your speakers 
today is that there is a grand confusion about the needs of the 
I airport for revenue -- in truth and in fact, all the ground side 
I users who have bid for the privilege, you know, the limosines 
J and the bus bid to be downstairs where the market is, your 

j parking garages and all the other users in fact have covered 

I 
your entire ground side cost. 

Any monies that you generate in addition from the 

ground transportation operators, 15 percent of that revenue will 

go to the city and county's general fund and the balance of that 

money will go entirely to offset the costs incurred by airlines. 

So that their landing fees and terminal leases will be reduced. 

i And I think the public is entitled to an up-front decision 

whether or not people who are going to ride the shared van ride 

services are to subsidize airport operations. Because you know 

the ticket prices aren't going down. 

What we are suggesting is a way of getting some 

revenue in, that in fact if you have a congestion issue, 

unfortunately -- and I'm really sympathetic to Mr. Turpen, it 

was a creative solution to a problem in which I think he hoped 

that he would not have to rely to a uniformed officer at the 

curb -- but I'm afraid that is really the only viable solution 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



r 



30 

to the enforcement of your rules. 

Using what we believe and what we understand to be 
the counting system is a laser system -- it kind of sounds like 
star wars -- that could be desperately expensive for that kind 
of capital, to input that kind of counting system in, or else 
it's horribly labor intensive, and the machinery is untested. 

So, rather than going through an expensive need that 
will increase your ground side costs, let's just say, okay, you 
need a set of rules that need to be enforced, put a police 
officer at the curb during the peak periods if you have to, and 
let's get on with business. 

We will be submitting to you a more detailed 
proposal regarding the actual written rules. If I may just 
mention, that SuperShuttle is opposed to any headway control for 
vans. If you have, as several of the other speakers are talking 
about, peak periods at the airport, it doesn't make any sense tc 
put a limit on the number of vans that can come through the 
airport; and if in fact these vans are your first opportunity 
ever to get people out of your private car, you will want to 
enhance their service and enhance the ability of the public to 
use the snared ride service, rather than to make it more 
difficult. 

What we would like to just say in conclusion is that 
the policy we are proposing will generate some revenue. It 
should be more than enough revenue to pay for the added cost of 
any police officers. It is crazy to increase fees to lower 
airplane revenues. 15 percent of what little money you're going 
to generate is not that significant for the general fund, and 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



31 

you begin to nave to regulate what you need to regulate, and let 
the shared van riders in fact let us help you decongest your 
lower level. But in fact what we would like to do is to really 
put everybody on an equal footing, let the passengers decide who 
should be downstairs and who should be up. 

Thank you for your indulgence. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Nancy. 

DR. GOOSBY: What do you pay now? You pay some fees 
to the airpor:? 

MS. LENVIN: I believe the they're paying $25 per 
month? Per van or is it just total? Cnarter? 

They're only paying charter fees at the moment. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Just want to tell you that 
flattering Turpen without including tne Commission can't win it 
for you. 

MS. LENVIN: Well, the staff has been very 
cooperative. As I've said to Mr. Turpen, as I say to you, 
SuperShuttle ' s position is we'd much rather be cooperative and 
everybody agree than to be at each other's throats. 

Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

(Commissioner Stephens leaves proceedings.) 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Orloff of the Airport 



Connection 



CLIFFORD ORLOFF 



MR. ORLOFF: Hi. I wanted to address the Commission 
on the issue of the ground transportation regulations. We've 
been operating at the airport for ten years now, scheduled 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



33 

very hard to break those out. And I would feel more comfortable 
with the analysis if I could see how Airporter and Associated 
Limosine's revenues and expenses were separated out from 
everyone else's. That's all. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

MR. ORLOFF: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Andy De Paule of the Good 
Neighbors Airbus. 

ANDY DE PAULE 

MR. DE PAULE: I'm Andy De Paule, Good Neignbors 
Airbus. All right, just before I make a comment, most 
everytnmg I was going to say, as usual, nas already been said 
by other people; but in regard to tne survey that was done by 
SuperShuttle , I think anytime we do a survey, whoever it is, if 
they have a personal reason for doing the survey, they want to 
bring out something that is in favor of them. 

Their survey was done on a Wednesday, and that's 
hardly the busiest day. Saturdays and Wednesdays are about the 
slowest days at the airport. Also, of course they were for at 
least three or four weeks holding back the flow of their 
vehicles at the airport to try to impress everybody with how 
little the flow of thier vehicles is at the airport. - 

It was during that period that they did this, so I 
wouldn't put any weight at all, because since then they've gone 
back to flooding the airport as they were in the first place. 
It's sort of like if I kept all my vehicles in the garage one 
day, and only sent one out three times and did a survey, and 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



34 

1 said, well, we only go there three times a day on the average, 

2 well, it's what you want to believe. 

3 Okay, actually the first speaker was pretty 

4 eloquent, the mar. who spoke for the Park 'N Fly and the other 

5 three off-airport covered pretty much everything; but I think 

6 fees are unreasonable, just because it's going to cost us an 
awful lot of money that we are just going to have to pass on, 

8 along with all the other fees that we have to pass on. 

9 I also have tried to get information on the exact 

10 number of trips to and from the airport by both commercial and 

11 I passenger vehicles, and I've not gotten an example number. I've 

12 also tried to get an exact breakdown of what tnese expenses are, 

13 because we've got the total that was sent to us but not what 

14 they actually are. So, it's hard for us to judge are these 

15 really expenses related to us. 

16 It's hard for me to imagine that it costs the 

17 airDort a dollar for me to come in and go out. It just doesn't 
I 

18 seem right. So, I think before any program is instituted, we 

19 i r.eea to nave, vou know, a good accounting, where since we're 
I 

being asked to pay, that we know exactly what it is we're paying 

for. And then also again we get something in return for that, 
through these hearings that have been held -- not hearings but 
meetings at the Airport Commission. They were simply too big 
with too many people to get much said, and no suggestions that 
didn't come from the airport were taken seriously; they were all 
just offhand rejected for the most part. 

So, there's still no -- for instance they were 
talking about the possible booth where they collect tickets. 



23 
24 

25 
26 
21 
28 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



35 

1 They can go through the trouble to build a booth to collect 

2 tickets, but they still can't talk about a weather shelter for 

3 the clients to this stand in to stay out of the weather. 

4 There's still simply not enough room at the islands where we 

5 have to pick up. We're also being asked to pay, as somebody 

6 else said, apparently 100 percent of the roadway costs when 
we're only getting access to ten or 15 percent of the roadway or 

8 curb space there. Thank you. 

9 MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Dana Reed, the 
10 Parking Company of America. 

11 

12 DANA REED 

13 MR. REED: Mr. President, I'll be very brief because 

14 Mr. Bloom did speak for the industry, but I just want to 

15 reiterate that the three parking companies are already paying in 

16 excess of 50 percent of the fees that you are generating now 

17 from these proposed regulations, and yet we are only the cause 

18 of about five to ten percent of the traffic. 

19 T. n .e City of Los Angeles did a survey for their 

20 proposed reg's, and their survey indicates that San Francisco is 

21 already charging more than any other airport in the country. 

22 They did San Francisco, New York, Atlanta, Seatack, Logan, 

23 Denver, Chicago and themselves, so, we are already paying more 

24 here in San Francisco for our operations than any other airport 

25 in the country. According to the City of Los Angeles, L.A.X.'s 

26 report; this is not -- these are not my figures. 

21 MR. BERNSTEIN: May we have a copy of that? 

28 MR. REED: By all means, Mr. President. By all 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



36 



1 means. And finally, as Mr. Bloom pointed out, sir, in our 

2 opinion is answer is not to raise the fees, which are already 

3 the highest in the nation, but to enforce the rules that you 

4 already have, and to collect from everybody, not just our 

5 companies. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: By enforcing the rules at the 
present, in the first place it's the congestion that's the major] 
problem. And of course the additional fees that we need for 
9 everythina that's gene up, not just your fees have aone up. But 

10 j we' haven't heard from anyone yet in concrete form as to how to 

11 I do that. 

12 MR. PEED: Well, sir, I think -- I oeg to -- I think 

13 | Mr. Bloom -- 

14 MR. BERNSTEIN: I will say this, it's our job to 

15 j decide -- to discover the methods to do it, it is not your job. 

16 j But we've been holding these public hearings, and we've spent 

17 hour after hour, as you can judge, the Commission has, trying to 

18 j come to a fair conclusion. There isn't anyone on this 

I Commission that just wants to take money for the sake of taking 
2 money. 

21 MR. REED: Totally — 

22 MR. BERNSTEIN: I still get my hundred dollars a 

2 3 month so it doesn't matter. 

i 

24 MR. REED: Totally agree, Mr. President. 

25 MR. BERNSTEIN: Sometimes I think I'm overpaid, but 

26 that's a different story. 

27 MR. REED: But if we're paying 50 percent of the 

28 revenue with only, say, maximum of ten percent of the traffic, 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



1 

2 
3 

5 

6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

15 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

25 
26 
27 
28 



37 

if everyone was paying the same ratio tnat we're paying, sir, I 
would suggest that you would have some -- 

MR. BERNSTEIN: My good friend, if we had to keep 
the accounting records on that, do you know what the fees would 
be? You'll want to know. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I'd just like to point out that's 
what we're here for. I mean, that's a point that is pointless. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Anyway, thank you very much. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Reed. 

Jim Rair.e -- "Rain" or "Rain-ee" -- of San Mateo 
Hotel Association. 

JIM PAINE 



MR. RAINE: Thank you, Mr. President, members of the 
Commission. My name is Jim Rame, I'm with Grcver Properties. 
We own and operate two hotels near the International Airport. 
I'm speaking on behalf of the San Mateo County Restaurant and 
i Kocel Owners Association today. We have 20 some hotels and 70 
some restaurants in our association. We have a lot of members 
here today for this hearing. 

I think everyone's spoke their peace pretty much on 
the congestion and the cost, and I think we're all in agreement 
with the things that have been said. We would just like to 
voice our objections to the proposal that's been introduced by 
Mr. Turpen, and as far as the hotels are concerned, we feel that 
we're not in the ground transportation business. And I know 
that's difficult for Mr. Turpen to realize. We feel that the 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



cost increase, if we're lumped in with this, would take some of 
our members from their present fees to an increase of five to 
six hundred percent, maybe even higher, if you went to this type 
of a system. 

We're in the hotel business and we're here to 
service our customers, and I think our customers are your 
customers just as well. They're guests that arrive at 
San Francisco International Airport. We pick them up, we want 
them to have a pleasant stay in San Francisco. 

If you drive into our hotels, you get charged the 
same rate as you do if you fly into our hotels. And therefore 
we do offer the service at no charge to our customers. We see 
did sit down some years back with the Airport Commission, or 
with Mr. Turpen's office, and arrived at a reasonable fee 
structure and a signage designated area for us to pick up and 
unload our passengers. And we're quite satisfied with that 
agreement and that association, and we'd like to maintain that. 

We believe that we pick up the largest number of 
passengers with the fewest number of vehicles that we can, and 
we try to hold our trips down to the demand basis. I know that 
other people have thrown around this demand thing, but as you 
know, we subscribe to an airport phone service that's located in 
the baggage claim areas for our hotels. We pay handsomely for 
that fee. We're allowed to have advertisement on that area. 
The customer calls our hotel, says that "I've now arrived at the 
International Airport, can you please send a van out to pick us 
up? " 

DR. GOOSBY: That's the only time your members come, 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



39 
is when you receive a call? 

MR. RAINE: When we receive the call, sir -- I can 
speak for the majority of our membership -- they arrive at the 
airport upon demand. 

Now, when we're taking customers back, we leave the 
same way, on a demand basis. So, our customers come to our 
locations for our vehicles, and in our particular hotels we run 
every half hour upon demand in the mornings for departures. And 
J for arrivals we run upon demand of the phone calls. Therefore 
! it's a position of the association that we be excluded from the 
I ground transportation handlers and not be considered as part of 
that group. Thank you. 

M? . BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Raine. 
Mr. Ruiz, Tony Ruiz? 

TONY RUIZ 

MP. RUIZ: Thank you, Commissioner . We asked the 
staff -- At the last staff meeting we asked that we meet 
individually with Mr. Turpen or his staff to discuss our 
individual problems — 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Speak into the mike, please. 

MR. RUIZ: Okay. 

-- to kind of discuss our individual problems. 
Everybody seems to have different problems. The easiest way to 
resolve that would be to meet with Mr. Turpen and each one of us 
explain what our problems are. As for mine, we would have to 
travel at least 56 or 70 times a day to the airport to pick up 
people or drop them off. It's going to run like $3- to $5000 a 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 
12 

] s 
14 
15 
16 
17 
16 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 
24 

25 
26 

27 
28 



40 

month for our group alone. The reason for that is we would drop 
off people and would then have to return and pick up people. If 
we have to stay in the lot, what will happen then is we'll have 
more vans we'll have to buy, more drivers we have to hire. 

I believe that we should be paying something to the 
airport, some fixed amount on a monthly basis. But my company 
cannot afford to pay what SuperShuttle can pay, we can't afford 
to pay for the seats, because they have different seating than 
we do. They have seven passengers seats, we have fourteen and 
sometip.es twenty. So, we've all got different problems, and 
each one of us should address that proclem individually with 
Mr. Turpen and his staff. Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Ruiz. 

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for taking the time 
to try to explain the problem as you see it and remedies. 

When do you expect a decision on this thing? 

MR. TURPEN: I think two things, Mr. President. I'd 
like to make a couple of comments. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Fine. 

MR. TURPEN: Typically what would nappen is I'd like 
to just make a few comments, and then we should close the public 
hearing. The Commission can then take under advisement the 
materials and suggestions it has received as well as 'our 
recommendations. I would expect that the Commission should be 
ready to make a decision by the first meeting in August, which 
is about three weeks from now, unless something should come up 
in the interim which would cause the Commission to delay that 
dec ision . 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



41 

There are a couple of things I think I'd just like 
to say while everyone's here. We've had an opportunity to speak 
on a couple of occasions in the past, but I do want to clarify a 
couple of statements that were made. 

Obviously one of our intents in promoting this 
program is to control congestion. Mr. Twichell defined traffic 
congestion as vehicles being held up, and I think in great 
measure that's accurate. But traffic congestion also means the 
ability of persons desiring to access the airport, tneir ability' 
tc a:;e;s the curb. And sometimes that's a problem. Matter of 
fact, many times that's a problem. 

For people who come to the airport, a trip to tne 
airport is meaningless unless you have the opportunity to get to 
the curb, pick up or drop off your person; and if you're 
foreclosed from that opportunity by persons sitting in those 
zones, then naturally that's got to be a concern to us. 

Money. The fee structure. The fee structure that's 
been proposed is based upon the costs in our concept we have at 
the airport. We do have five cost centers at the airport, one 
of which is the ground transportation cost center. In taking a 
look at all of the vehicle trips that come to the airport in a 
year, we took that percentage that we estimated for these what 
we call "on demand" -- with deference to Mr. Leonouda"kis ' 
comments -- we took a look at the on-demand vehicles, including 
the hotel, motel, parking lot, off-airport rental car, charter, 
et cetera, and we took what percentage those vehicles were of 
the total, and then we took the airport roadway amortization, 
our operating costs, utilities, et cetera, and we simply 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



42 

multiplied the percentage of on-demand vehicle trips of the 
total to that number. 

Obviously if no one's at the airport on Saturday or 
no one's at the airport at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, that 
doesn't necessarily mean that we still don't have utility 
obligations, we still don't have amortization on the roadway 
presets that we've done. Further, police officers can't be 
there for the 15 minutes you need them and then be sent home 
just to be brought back for the other 30 or 40 minutes that you 
need them again. Once we've committed to manning a force at the 
airpcrt, then we're obligated to pay for that force. So, those 
things are important that you understand. 

Someone brought up the concept that we were 
suDsidizing the airlines. That's simply not true. As a matter 
of fact, in looking at this -- and this whole thing has prompted 
us to take a closer look at the roadway system -- it appears 
that otner ground transportation users, specifically the garage, 
are subsidizing this effort. That's why we've come up with the 
fee that we've suggested to the Airports Commission. 

The Airports Commission obviously is not obligated 
to accept or recommendation, it's simply a recommendation that 
west think is appropriate. Some things have been said today 
that would cause us to do some further thinking, but it's 
important that at least I clarify for you some of our thinking. 

Of on-airport rental cars: They do have a headway 
requirement in their lease with us, they do have a fine 
requirement, and have been levied fines for exceeding their 
headway requirement at the airport; and it's important that you 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 

9 

10 
11 
12 
1? 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 
24 

25 
26 
27 
28 



43 

understand that they have been living within the headway 
requirement, or if not living within it, paying the penalties 
for not living within it for some time now. 

When we talk about a five-minute headway or 12 
vehicles an hour, we obviously aren't going to have people 
standing out there and measuring five minutes. That's not the 
intent. The intent is simply to establish a headway mechanism 
in such a way that people understand what it is, and we're 
talking about 12 trips an hour. If there are two within four 
minutes or three win eight minutes, it's not going to 
necessarily get us as concerned as the fact that there are 
forty, fifty, sixty within an hour. Tne attempt to establish 
headway control is predicated on the fact that we do have 
limited curb space at the airport. 

We've talked aoout other airports here today; Dallas 
Fcrt Worth has 18,000 acres, Montreal has 26,000 acres, O'Hare 
has in excess of 10,000 acres I believe. We have 2000 acres. 
We are the sixth or seventh largest airport in the world 
i wit . 2 00C acres to conduct all of our activities and to permit 



1 

everyo 


ne in 


this room plus hundreds 


of other 


bus 


messes 


the 




ccport 


unity 


for equal access at the 


airport . 














We have taken a look -- 


somebody 


mentioned 


that 




we ' re 


the highest in the country on 


fees; 0' 


Hare 


doesn ' 


t charge 


any fees, f 


or example, so it's not 


hard to b 


e hi 


gher th 


an zero. 


L.A. d 


oesn ' 


t charge fees to an awfu 


1 lot of 


its 


-- an awful 


lot 


of the 


vehi 


cles that we're talking 


about; their 


fee is 


zero 




Dal las 


Fort 


Worth does charge, my understand 


ing 


from Da 


lias 


is 


they c 


Targe 


S3 per exit trip. So, 


I mean, it does vary 


around 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



1 

2 

3 
4 

5 
6 

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 
17 

18 
1 j 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

28 



44 
tne country. 

We're trying to establish a fair and reasonable 
rate. We're open as always to suggestions from this community 
on how we can best do that. We've taken our best shot, we've 
tried to tell you why we think that's the appropriate number. 
Once again, in the interim we're obviously available to you, and 
any information you'd like to present, please present it through 
my office, and I will guarantee that you that the Airports 
Commission will nave it in its hands within 24 hours of the time 
that I receive it. 

Lastly, you know, we talked a little bit about the 
vehicle... tne transit vehicle, if you you will, as being a 
substitute for the private car. We've done a couple things that 
I'd like to share with you, because your comments have prompted 
us to take a look at some of the things that have happened. We 
did a count of the number of passengers on each type of vehicle 
leaving the airport. This was a physical count by persons 
actually stationed on the roadway counting the number of people. 
So, unless they had ducked below the windows, we probably would 
have counted them. 

But we were averaging, for the on-demand or on-call 
venicles, were averaging 1.2 passengers per trip off of the 
airport; the hotel/motel were 1.7; the off-airport rent-a-car 
1.5; the on-demand, if you you will, or on-call operators 1.2; 
off-airport parking 1.1 passengers per vehicle trip. That's 
obviously not as high as either one of us want it. 

If you take three or four people off the airport per 
vehicle, then obviously you're helping us significantly; and if 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-3009 



I 45 

1 you take one person off or slightly in excess of one, 

2 essentially what we're doing is substituting a bus trip for a 

3 private vehicle trip, and that has to be some concern to us. 

4 I think another thing, the last thing, is that the 

5 airport, the businesses which you represent, derive a 

6 significant revenue from the airport. We estimate in excess 

7 of $50 million of gross revenue is generated for all your 

8 businesses by passengers coming to San Francisco Airport, by the 

9 fart that Sar. Francisco Airport is where it is. 

1C We think it is reasonable that businesses which 

11 I derive an excess of S50 million in gross revenue from the 

12 airport pay their fair share -- and no one's asking that you pay 

13 more than that -- their fair share of the cost of the operation 

14 of the airport. The airlines have done that for years, as a 

15 matter of fact the airlines for years have paid more than their 

16 j fair snare. Persons who contract with the airport, that money 

17 is put into the pot. They freely and willingly contract with 

18 i the ai rocrt . 

i 
i 

-^ Lastly, people wno use the airport I think should be 

20 required to pay; and the issue before the Commission is twofold, 

21 one, you know, my recommendation of a rate versus what the 

22 Commission, after hearing this testimony, views as the 

23 appropriate rate should be paid. 

24 I thank all of you seriously for your candid 

25 comments. This hasn't been an easy thing for any of us. It's 

26 very difficult to try and strike a balance among so many 

27 conflicting interests, but we will continue to try to do that, 

28 we will do it in good faith; and I assure you that if you have 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



46 

have any questions, please feel free to call me or the staff in 
the interim period, and we'll try to answer it as best we can. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: I think some of the Commissioners 
would like to say something? Would you, Ed? 

MR. FLEISHELL: Well, yes, briefly. Frankly it's 
still not clear to me whether we're attempting by this change in 
policy to raise money or to control traffic. If you're trying 
to raise money, I think that we're doing it in a highly 
discriminatory way. I tnink that people, the last speaker, the 
next to the last speaker, the hotel people are involuntarily in 
the transit business. I think they ought to be treated 
differently. I think that you've got -- 

Talking about a cost center -- and I know a little 
bit about that, since I negotiated it with the airlines -- you'd 
end up with almost coin-operated water fountains if you carry it 
to this extreme. 

You've got all the airline trucks are excluded by 
tne terms of the settlement agreement. The passenger autos 
aren't being counted. The airline suppliers aren't being 
counted. The suppliers to all other concessionaires are not 
being charged. Buses, the public buses, are not being charged. 
You're ending up taking a minority of the people and having them 
assume the majority of the burden. It doesn't seem 'fair to me. 
(Applause . ) 

If you're talking about a taxing collection 
operation, I just learned in the last month that we lose money 
on the dollar and a quarter we collect. In other words, it 
costs us more than a dollar and a quarter to collect a dollar 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



47 

and a quarter. And if we're talking about instituting a system 
with these new kind of tickets for these people, and end up with 
another callus on our bureaucracy, which will cause us to lose 
even more money, I'm not sure where we're going, and I'd like to 
get some answers for that. 

I also would like to get these mathematics upon 
which you base your conclusions so that we can look at them. 
The Corjrission hasn't seen any of those. 

MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir; they've provided to you. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Well, may I have another copy? 
Because I don't remember seeing them. That's all I want to say. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I just want to make one comment, 
if I car., Mr. President. I don't think -- You're comparing 
apples to oranges if you compare the passenger ground side 
transportation to the suppliers. The suppliers don't have any 
choice, they have to come in; the number of trips, they have to 
come in on are, you know, regulated by the amount of supplies 
they have to bring in. 

I think when we talk about regulating traffic, we're 
talking about regulating passenger traffic that's related to 
picking up passengers, which can be controlled if we can in some 
manner increase the number of people any single trip takes. So, 
there is a difference, and I don't think we can compare apples 
to oranges. 

I have one suggestion, we could perhaps change the 
number of free trips to tie to the number of vehicles rather 
than the flat number. I know this is coming out of left field 
but anyway — 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



48 

1 MR. TURPEN: I understand. 

2 MS. TSOUGARAKIS: — that's something I would ask 

3 that you look at. Thanks a lot. 

4 MR. BERNSTEIN: Okay, thank you. 

5 Do you want to say anything? 

6 DR. GOOSBY: No; I just think that I'd like to get 
that information that the gentleman had about Los Angeles. 

8 You're going to submit that to staff, and then they'll copy that 

9 an- get it to us. 

i 

10 I think that I just want to congratulate the 

11 | industry for coming forward with their specific suggestions and 

12 . criticisms. That's the way we arrive at a viable compromise. 

13 The other thing is I had a -- It's all been helpful. 

14 I think that the cost center approach -- It's also 

15 the policy of the Commission, which the Commission passed two or 

16 three years ago, that we were going to try to get -- as a matter 

17 of fact, it's written in the agreement with the airlines if I'm 

18 not mistaken -- that we would try to get each cost center to pay 

19 I its own way. This is an effort to build up the income from this 

20 ground side operation so that it begins to cover its fair cost 

21 of the operating the airport. 

22 Those people, those industries who are not in the 

23 City, who don't even pay city and county taxes, have" to also 

24 realize that their in San Mateo County, and they're using and 

25 they're in existence and they're only making money because of 

26 their proximity to the airport; so, it's only fair and it's only 

27 reasonable that they pay something in lieu of even paying 

28 San Francisco cost of operation, that they pay something toward 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



415) 481-8009 



49 
the upkeep and maintenance of the airport. I think that's fair 

Now, what bothers me, as some of the Commissioners 
are letting the staff know, that I think as the hotels and 
motels, as they stated, are not in the transportation business, 
they are incidentally providing their clients with a service, 
and they should pay something. I think we should try to arrive 
at a fair -- what's considered a fair amount. 

I think that the parking lot operators, who I have 



a I w a v s r e i 



c^T - __ 



even when we talked about this a year ago -- the 



parking lot operators again are providing a service, long-term 
parking lot operators. People come to park there and to get the 
more reasonable rate, and they are forced to then bring them 
over tc the airport, but they're providing a service to the 
people in the area. So, those two categories, I don't know how 
it can be structured, where you'll get a differential; but 
hopefully we can look at that, as we come to a final conclusion, 
and have a vote on this. I'm finished. Thank you. 

:-'.P . BERNSTEIN: Speaking for myself, all I keep 
hearing about is how much it costs and how much money. And the 
dollars I think can be resolved. The problem tnat I see is the 
control and the transportation problems. I was at the airport 
last Monday, came in, and I must tell you that if I had a tank 
I'd have cleared the way. 

I think that perhaps there ought to be smaller 
committees meeting with the different groups, perhaps they can 
help the staff. I know the staff's trying to do a conscientious 
job. But all I keep hearing when I keep asking "How can you 
help us? Can you tell us how to control this, do a better job?" 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



50 

and tnen I hear it's going to be 40,000 or 20,000 or 10,000. 

I just want to tell you ladies and gentlemen -- 

speaking for myself and I think for the Commission -- the money 

is a secondary part of it. It may very well be tnat through the 

dollars that we can control the other. Eut we've got to do 

something to help the people and the passengers. I think that 

we nave the best system of public transportation. I've used 

j prettv much every one of them, including SuperShuttle and the 

Airperter ani taxis and everything else, and we have the best 

system. But I think it's — going down there. 

I just den 't want to a cop to chase me away when I'm 
I 
| picking up my wife, as he did the other day. And if you keep 

applauding Fleishell, he'll run for mayor, so, let's keep that 
down . 

DR. GOOSBY: Lou, in that survey you took of exiting 
vehicles, tnat one point something average, did they also count 
how many they had coming on? 

MR. TURPEN: Sheldon? 

DR. GOOSBY: In other words, they had an average of 
one point something leaving; how many did they have coming on? 

SHELDON FEIN 

MR. SHELDON FEIN: It may not necessarily be one 
point something leaving, but if you had five people leaving the 
airport, and if that vehicle made three or four loops around the 
airport to leave with the five people, then the average number 
of people per loop would only be 1.2. 

So, a vehicle may be leaving the airport with five 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



51 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



people on it, but it has driven around the terminal area four 
times to end up with an average of 1.2 people. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Did you track how many were 
looped? Could you tell us how many were looping? In other 
words, the count would be different for the vans than it would 
be, say, for the hotel vehicles and so forth. 

MR. FEIN: There are two different types of loop. 
Approximately 20 percent of them just loop right around the 
[ upper level roadway, go around and come back. Then there's 
another croup that after they drop off, may pull down, ride 
I aroj.r.d the airport, sit someplace, and then come back and pick 
up, go down and so forth. 

We're talking 20 percent just making a direct loop 
going around where we saw them continuing around. There's 
another group that goes down, waits, and then recircles again 
five minutes later or something like that. If they're waiting 
for somebody from an airline. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: All right. 

MR. TURPEN: Should declare the public hearing 
closed. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes, we're going to adjourn for an 
executive session. Thank you very much for being here. 

(Public Hearing adjourned at 11:05 a.m.)- 

oOo 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

) ss . 
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ) 

I, the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State of 
California, hereby certify that foregoing Public Hearing was 
taken at the time and place therein stated; that the proceedings 
of said Public Hearing were reported by me, a Certified 
Shorthand Reporter and disinterested person, and were thereafter 
transcribed under my direction into typewriting; that the 
foregoing is a full, complete and true record of said hearing. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney 
for either or any of the parties in the foregoing Public 
Hearing, nor am I in any way interested in the outcome of the 
cause named herein. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 
affixed my seal this 29th day of July 1986. 




err.' ial s$\\i 

CHARLOTTE CERVANfll 

N0 TA*< r ^LlC-CALlfg&NIA 

CC JNTY OF AL.*.MeE?A 

BjCoBc:J.;iU;iiist*». I J, 



v CHARLOTTE CERVANTES Z~ 
CSR #4486 - (Notary Public^ 
State of California K - 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 



(415) 481-8009 



JON TWICH-eLL/ 
dSSOCMTES 



PO Box 2n5 San Francisco Caufom, a 94126 1415. 522 1376 



PrOieC Ann'O.aiS • Transco"a' - p annmg £ P-oO'en- Solving 

TO: Bill Lai3r, 'v. 

FROM : Jon Tw i die 1 1 

RE: Sunmarv of Results, SunerShuttle Passenger Survev 



Sundav , 

conduct 
to fill 
of 15i>S 

T"l- : < In 



ring; the seven-day week, from Monday, June lb, 1986, to 
June 22, 1986, a sample of SuperShuttle passengers was 

ed. Drivers asked passengers both to 3nd from the airport 
out a survey form, if the passenger wished to. A total 
survev forms were returned, about a 15 percent return. 

vel of participation, along with comparing daily results 

overall week's results, assures me that these results are 



to : .-. c 
reliable. 

Seme of the kev results are: 



62 

bu 

» t- 

or 
Co 
ma 
In 
us 
Pi" 



pe 
s in 

st 

l r 
n v - 
l n 

re 
i r. : 
C \ : 



Th 
Su 
to 

Pi 
an 
re 
In 
co 

CO 

th 
Th 



is 
per 
tal 
ck 
d c 
due 
re 
uld 
mme 
ree 
1 s 
th 



resu 
Shut 

of 
up/d 
reat 
ed b 
spon 

mak 
nts 

qua 
indi 
Supe 



s o 

lar 

ce 

ons 

se 

erS 

mod 

pic 

oth 

tax 

dro 

ren 

San 

n . a 

It 

tie 

4 6* 

rop 

e n 

y ° 

se 

e i 

wer 

rte 

cat 

rSh 



f SuperShuttle 

iy • 

and door-to-doo 
for choosing t 
to a question r 
buttle, here is 
e : 

ked up/dropped 
er van/ li mo /Air 
icab : 

ve and parked : 
tal car : 
Trans 



flew several times a vear, 



rcent of trips were for pleasure, rather than 

ess. 
user 
regu 
n i e n 
reas 
s p c n 
Sup 
ous 

1 



r service were cited as the 
he service . 

e mode of travel before 
the breakdoun of Drimarv 



off: 

porter 



31? 
2 3 e c 

2 ' 

15* 

5 o 



is particularly important , since it indicates 
is lower ing auto trips to the airport by a 

, almost 20,000 trips per month; furthermore, 
off trips, which cause traffic congestion 

o revenue at all for the Airport, were 

ver 13,000 trips per month. 

to a question on what improvements SuperShuttle 

n their service, the vast majority of 

e enthusiastic praise for the service... 

rs of the 400+ responses to this question. 

es to me substantial public satisfaction 

uttle's service 



Attached is a copy of a randomly -picked survey response. 



SUPERSHUTTLE ON-BOARD PASSENGER SURVEY 



T h a n k you for choosing Super Shuttle for your trip to/from the 
San Francisco International Airport! We appreciate your support. 

In order to make our service even better, would you please take 
a minute to fill out this survey? You need not identify yourself 
on the survey forr^. Thanks again, and enjoy your trip. 



Is your trip: ( ) b u s i n e s s ( : [ personal 

Do you fly: ( ) s e v e r a 1 times a year 

( ) several times a month 
( • ) -- i r r e c J 1 a r "! y 




c o n v i e n c e ■■' e a s y aval I a b i 1 i t ; 
low cost 
-"a'oor to door service 
modern, clean vehicles 
other 



How long have you u sei/ SuperShuttle in San Francisco 

{"■■) first time '■ ' 

( ) within the last month 

( ) since beginning of 1986 

) since fall of 1985 



5. 'r'.dve you used SuperShuttle in Los Angeles: 



) yes 



^ "n~0 



How did you get back and forth to the airport before you began 
using SuperShuttle: 

) drove and parked 
'—^dropped off/picked up by friend or relative 
) rental car 
) took taxi 

) took another van /limousine service 
) took SamT ra ns 

What could be done to improve SuperShuttle service for you: 



Please place completed survey in envelope. Thanks for your help. 
700 Sixteenth Street San Franosco CaMorma 94107 Telephone (415)558 8500 



iv 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS Di 

SEP £1)1986 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



MINUTES 



AUGUST 5, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

August 5, 1986 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A. CALL TO ORDER: • 

B. ROLL CALL: ! 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 



Regular meeting of 

July 15, 1986 86-0176 



D. - ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 3 

E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 4-5 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. Resolution Amending Airport Rules 
and Regulations Governing 
Commercial Ground Transportation 
Operations 86-0177 

2. Authorization to Receive Bids: 
Lease of Automatic Teller 
Machines in the North and 

South Terminal Buildings 86-0178 

3. Rejection of Bids - Contract 
No. 1601: Underground Fuel 

Storage Tanks 86-0179 

4. Bid Call - Contract No. 1736: 
Traffic Controllers, Airport 

Guard Shelters 86-0180 

5. Type II Modification for 
Contract 1414AB: Boarding 
Area 'B' Renovation/South 

Concession Area - $138,268. 86-0181 

6. Bid Call - Contract No. 1738: 

Silt Removal - 1986 86-0182 

7. Resolution Modifying Rental 
Rate and Requesting Supple- 
mental Appropriation - Plots 

11 and 11A 86-0813 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUNTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

8. Statistical Adjustment 1985-86 
Joint Use Billings under Lease 

and Use Agreement 86-0184 

9. Resolution Approving Extension 

of Time 86-0185 

10. Award of Contract 1514: 
International Terminal New 
Janitor Sinks, Booster Heaters 

& Alteration 86-0186 

11. Tenant Improvement: 
PSA - South Terminal - 
Contract T-3141 - No Cost 

to City 86-0187 

12. Tenant Improvement: 

Hertz Lot A - Administration 

Building Modification - T-3139 

$25,000 - No Cost to City 86-0188 

13. Tenant Improvement: 

New Hydtrant Fuel System 
Contract T-3134 - No Cost to 
Airport 



CORRESPONDENCE: 
CLOSED SESSION: 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 
CLOSED SESSION: 



Minutes, August 5. 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

August 5, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM 1n Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z.L. Goosby 

Athena Tsougarakis 

Don Richards Stephens 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of July 15, 1986 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 86-0176 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with the Brown Act, 
Section 54957.1, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
86-0172 regarding the settlement of a 
claim; 86-0173, modification of agree- 
ment with Alexander, Millner and 
McGee; 86-0174, exempting Airport 
curator positions; and 86-0175, an 
agreement with Morrison and Foerster, 
at the closed session of July 15, 1986, 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting recessed at 9:04 AM to go into closed session and reconvened 
at 9:30 AM. 



Minutes, August 5, 1986. Page 3 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Goosby said that on July 21 the Commission received informa- 
tion regarding four pieces of pending State legislation. He said that 
Peter Nardoza had recommended action and wondered if the Commission should 
adopt a format that will automatically handle these issues. He did not 
know whether the recommendation was surreptiously made by the Commission 
or whether or not action will be taken on those items that could 
potentially effect the Airport. 

Commissioner Flelshell said that these are high policy Items that the 
Commission should be informed of prior to going to the Legislative 
Advocate. He said that the pending legislation creating an aviation 
commission has already been amended by the President of the Senate and 
that it is unlikely that the amendment will be reversed. Commissioner 
Fleishell said that the author of the bill wants to appoint the Director 
of the I. A. airport. He said that some of the members of the Commission 
have experience 1n these areas and It might be helpful to staff to know 
what the Commission has to say before asking Mr. Gerber to move ahead. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said current procedure Is to transmit 
information received from Mr. Gerber to the Commission and In that 
transmission Commissioners are asked for their comments. He felt that it 
might be appropriate to include a section in the agenda covering 
legislation under which the Commission could consider whether or not to 
direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution reflecting the sense of 
the Commi ssion. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that during the normal legislative session 
that would be a good way to handle it. He said that the legislative 
session starts on August 11 and goes three weeks and felt that the 
telephone would be fast enough. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the document he gave to the Commission 
this morning was received last Saturday. He was told that no action would 
be taken on the bill for two weeks yet on Saturday he found out that the 
Senate approved the bill at 11:00 PM on July 10. He said that neither he 
nor the Airport received official notification. 

Mr. Turpen said it was just a suggestion. He said that staff could 

continue to send the information to the Commission as soon as it is 

received and then the Commission can continue to Individually make 
suggestions . 

Commissioner Goosby preferred Mr. Turpen's original suggestion of giving 
the entire Commission the opportunity to comment on legislation. 

Mr. Turpen said staff will continue to send copies of all legislation 
received, from Mr. Gerber to each member of the Commission. In addition, a 
new calendar section will be added called "Legislation" in which bills 
will be summarized. This will allow the Commission the opportunity to 
publicly debate legislation and direct the staff to take a position. 



Commissioner Fleishell suggested that the meeting adjourn In honor of the 

memory of the late George Agnost. He said that Mr. Agnost was one of the 

finest public servants this City has seen 1n a long time. Mr. Agnost did 
a great job and he always did what was best for the City. 

The Commission unanimously concurred. 



Minutes, August 5, 1986, Page 4 



Commissioner Bernstein said that there has been some further discussion 
and correspondence on free carts. He asked Mr. Turpen for his opinion on 
how the Commission should proceed. 

Mr. Turpen said that he sent the Commission a brief note on this matter in 
which he attempted to outline the options for the Commission. He 
suggested calendaring this item for the next meeting at which time the 
Commission can advise staff on how to proceed. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the Mayor should be advised by the 
Commission that the cost of providing free carts throughout the Airport Is 
not economic. He said that the Commission has always felt that free carts 
In the International Terminal made sense. He felt that the simplest way 
to achieve that is to move ahead with the cancellation of the existing 
contract and bid the new contract with the provision that whoever wins the 
bid must provide luggage carts in the International Terminal In an amount 
to be determined by the Director. He said that that was the precise 
language the Commission put in the contract eight and a half years ago but 
when it was typed up the words "50 carts" were used instead of what the 
Commission voted. He felt that 1f 7 percent of gross is bid instead of 10 
percent of gross, the City will not be In the cart business and we will be 
performing a valuable service to the public. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked If that change would bring in more than one 
bidder this time. 

Commissioner Fleishell responded that it is hard to say. He felt that 
since there is a specific economic track record for the current operator 
we will find that new operators will bid. He said that the operator could 
buy 1000 carts from Hong Kong at $100 a piece and be in business. 

Mr. Turpen, in clarifying the Commission's desires, said that the issue of 
free carts in customs only will be addressed; the pay cart system outside 
the customs area will essentially remain the same in concept; and, to 
pursue using Smarte Carte or, if that contract is no longer appropriate, 
to begin the bidding process. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she would like to see some alternative Ideas 
as well as consider the notion of dissuading the free cart concept. 

Mr. Turpen said he will calendar this item for the next meeting and 
outline some options so that the Commission can direct staff. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed that the issue should be calendared but felt 
that someone should talk to the Mayor about this. He said he did not see 
the Mayor' s letter. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said her concern is that the Commission is 
getting mixed signals, and added that the Mayor objected when this was 
placed in the budget last year. 

Mr. Turpen said that any information resulting from the next Commission 
meeting or any action the Commission takes will be transmitted to the 
Mayor for her concurrence. 



Commissioner Stephens asked if an annual report was being prepared as 
mentioned in a July 17 memo to the Commission. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff was proceeding with the report. 



Minutes, August 5, 1986, Page 5 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 
The following Item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

1. Resolution Amending Airport Rules and Regulations Governing 
Commercial Ground Transportation Operations 

No. 86-0177 

Commissioner Bernstein reminded the audience that there have been 
several opportunities at public hearings to address the Commission on 
this issue. He said that there has been some revision to the rules 
and there will be another opportunity to address the Commission at a 
later date. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said, as a point of order, that the 
Commission must vote to re-open the public hearing. 

Mr. Turpen said that the City Attorney has advised that the public 
hearing was closed by the Commission. He said that this period is 
normally dedicated to the Commission for discussion. If the 
Commission desires to re-open the public hearing then a vote of the 
Commission is required. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he would rather take public comments 
after the final copy is before the Commission. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said the Commission must either adopt the 
rules as they are or modify them. If the rules are modified then the 
issue will be recalendared for confirmation, at which time the public 
hearing would be re-opened. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, explained that if the 
Commission revises the rules then they must be brought back to the 
Commission with the revised language for confirmation. The public 
hearing would then be re-opened and the public would have the 
opportunity to comment on the revisions. 

Commissioner Stephens suggested amending the proposed regulations to 
provide for a two-tier system: courtesy vehicles would be charged 
250 a trip and revenue vehicles would be charged 400 a trip. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis seconded the motion. 

Commissioner Goosby, adding to the motion, said that language should 
be added to provide for an appeal procedure. 

Commissioner Stephens recommended eliminating the 5 percent free 
trips . 

The following items were unanimously adopted: 

2. Authorization to Receive Bids: 

Lease of Automatic Teller Machines 1n the North and South Terminal 
Bui Idings 

No. 86-0178 Resolution approving leasehold speci- 

fications and authorizing Director to 
receive bids for the Lease of Auto- 
matic Teller Machines in the North and 
South Terminal Buildings. 



Minutes, August 5, 1986. Page 6 



Rejection of Bids - Airport Contract No. 1691: 
Underground Fuel Storage Tanks 

No. 86-0179 Resolution rejecting the two bids 

received for Contract No. 1691. The 
contractors' bids were non-responsive 



4. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1736: 

Traffic Controllers, Airport Guard Shelters 

No. 86-0180 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1736, and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



Type II Modification for Contract 1414AB: 
Boarding Area 'B' Renovation/South Concession Area 
$138,268.00 

No. 86-0181 Contract modification to provide for 

additional work for unforeseen 
conditions and deficiencies in plans 
and specifications. 



6. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1738: 
Silt Removal - 1986 

No. 86-0182 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1738, and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



Resolution Modifying Rental Rate and Requesting Supplemental 
Appropriation - Plots 11 and 1 1 A 

No. 86-0183 Resolution modifying the rental rate 

Republic Airlines for Plots 11 and 
11A, and requesting a supplemental 
appropriation to fund Increased sub- 
lease payments from City to Republic 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Item No. 13 was put over. Items eight through 12 were unanimously adopted. 

8. Statistical Adjustment 1985-86 - Joint Use Billings under Lease and 
Use Agreement 

No. 86-0184 Resolution adjusting 1985-86 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline-Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Sun Country Airlines, 
Inc. 

Minutes, August 5, 1986, Page 7 



9. Resolution Approving Extension of Time 



No. 86-0185 



Resolution approving extension of time 
for Aircraft Apron engineering design 
contract with Daniel, Mann, Johnson 
and Mendenhall. Contract time 
extended to December 31, 1987, at no 
cost change. 



10. Award of Contract No. 1515: 

International Terminal New Janitor Sinks, Booster Heaters & Alteration 



No. 86-0186 



Resolution awarding Airport Contract 
No. 1514 to Echo West, Inc., in the 
amount of $29,977. 

Two bids were received on June 19, 
1986 ranging from $29,977 to $32,500. 



11. Tenant Improvement: 
PSA - South Terminal 
Contract T-3i41 - No Cost to Airport 



No. 86-0187 



Resolution approving final plans and 
specifications and authorizing 
construction of Ground Service 
Equipment Room, and Storage Room by 
PSA at the airline's own expense. 



12. Tenant Improvement: 
Hertz Lot A 

Administration Building Modification 
T-3139 - $25,000 - No Cost to City 

No. 86-0188 



The following item was put over 

13. Tenant Improvement: 

New Hydrant Fuel System 

Contract T-3134 - No Cost to Airport 



Resolution approving the plans and 
specifications and authorizing 
construction of a new hydrant fueling 
system on Boarding Area 'C by Air 
California, Delta and Northwest 
Airlines at their sole cost and 
expense. 



Minutes, August 5, 1986. Page 8 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:55 A.M. to go into closed session. 



Je$n Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, August 5. 1986, Page 9 









A 



ru 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



SEP ^ 91986 

SAi>l fRAIMQISCO 



<. AUGUST 19, 1986 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEfM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 






Index 

of the Minutes 

Ai rports Commi ssion 

August 19, 1986 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



CALL TO ORDER: 

ROLL CALL: 

ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 86-0189 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 3 

Declaration of Emergency: 

Removal of Asbestos in South 

Terminal 86-0190 3-5 

Manuel Neri Sculpture 5 



E. PENDING LEGISLATION: 

1. Report on State Legislation 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

2. Resolution Amending Rules and 
Regulations - Ground Transpor- 
tation Operations 86-0191 6-19 

3. Authorization to Bid: 
Boarding Area E - Principal 

Concession Lease 86-0192 19-21 

4. Luggage Carts 21-22 

5. Bid Call - Contract No. 1752: 
Maintenance Building Roofing 

Over Republic Airlines Hangar 86-0193 22 

6. Bid Cal 1 - Contract No. 1753 
Emergency Underground, Hazardous 
Material, Storage Tanks Removal 

and Related Work 86-0194 22 

7. Modification of Professional 
Services Agreement - Steve 

Gregory 86-0195 22-23 

8. Tenant Improvement: Airport 
Hilton Signage Upgrade - T-3122 - 

$50,000 - No Cost to City 86-0196 23-24 



Airline Tenant Improvements on 

Boarding Area C - Contract 

T-3134 - New Hydrant Fuel 

System 86-0197 24-25 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 



Retirement Resolution - 

Robert F. Green 86-0198 25 

Request for Approval of Travel/ 

Training for Airports Commission 

Representative 86-0199 25 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

12. Fiscal rear 1986/87 Rates and 

Charges 25-26 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 26 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 26 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

August 19, 1986 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:06 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougaraki s 
Don Richards Stephens 

Absent: J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of August 5, 1986 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 86-0189 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Goosby introduced a declaration of emergency for the removal 
of asbestos in the South Terminal. He asked Mr. Jason Yuen, Acting 
Director of Airports, to explain. 

Mr. Yuen said that asbestos was discovered in about 7000 square feet of 
area demolished in the South Terminal. He explained that although the 
contractor for that area has a subcontractor licensed to remove asbestos, 
he quoted a price of $181,000 and said he needed six weeks to do the 
work. Mr. Yuen said that this would delay the South Terminal construction 
project by six weeks. He approached another contractor, currently working 
in the South Terminal removing asbestos, who submitted a bid of $91,000 
and will require half the time to complete the work. 

Mr. Yuen recommended the work be taken away from the general contractor 
and he asked the Commission to declare an emergency and issue a contract 
for a separate contractor to do the work. 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 3 



Mr. Yuen added tha^ the original drawings did not show rhat there was 
asbestos in that area. 

Commissioner Goo s by asked if the difference in the cost between the two 
bids would impact the health standards that must be met in the removal of 
asoestos . 

Mr. Yuen said that there are a variety of health standards that must be 
met and he was satisfied they will be met. He said that a special license 
is required to remove asbestos, both contractors are licensed to remove 
asbestos and both contractors have done this work at the Airport. 

Ihe item was unanimously adopted by the Commission. 

No. 86-0189 

Mr. Laine Jenkins, Universal Installation, asked permission to address the 
Commi ssion . 

Mr. Jenkins said he was the subcontractor who submitted the bid for 
$181,000. He said he has done this work for Williams and Burrows, Echo 
West and the Airport itself and is currently working at the Airport 
removing asbestos. He said he has been doing this work at the Airport for 
approximately two years. 

Mr. Jenkins said he met with Dr. Fowler, who was called in by SFO to 
survey the matter, and that his price was based on Dr. Fowler's 
recommendation. Mr. Jenkins said that Dr. Fowler's statement (found in a 
letter addressed to Tutor Saliba) indicates that "...all structures in the 
bar are particularly contaminated with asbestos from the fireproof beams. 
Thus, I believe that all demolition work in the bar should be done under 
appropriate controls. This includes all clean-up and soft demolition 
including pick-up of the carpet and furniture. Because of the potential 
for contamination of the lath and plaster ceiling and walls and our past 
experience with discovery of previously unsuspected asbestos in similar 
situations, the demolition of these structures should also be done under 
stringent enclosure and control conditions. The structures in the back of 
the kitchen area, two by four wire mesh construction, are also probably 
contaminated. Even if not contaminated, demolition of these structures 
will inevitably disturb the fireproofing and will cause potential exposure 
to demolition of these structures. Thus, it makes no sense to attempt to 
separate the demolition work and the asbestos abatement work." 

Mr. Jenkins said that there are seven or eight walls running throughout 
the area and workers will be exposing themselves to asbestos if the work 
is done with a bobcat (a miniature type of "catapillar" used to tear down 
walls). He said that the wire mesh must be treated as contaminated and 
everything must be sealed in barrels and taken to the appropriate area for 
disposal. He said that although it is not impossible, it is highly 
improbable that ECU can do the work for the price they quoted. "Mr. 
Jenkins said he also had a letter from Gene Bordegaray of BPC dated August 
9. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Jenkins if Dr. Fowler's letter was addressed 
to Airport staff. 

Mr. Jenkins responded that Dr. Fowler's letter was addressed to Tutor 
Sal iba, the contractor. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the other contractor received a copy of Dr. 
Fowler's letter. 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 4 



Mr. Yuen responded that both -tr~ tor: were given the same information . 
Hp ^aid there are very tight controls for the removal of asbestos and both 
contractors meet OSHA and EPA standards. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if the Airport would have as much protection 
under this contractor as it would have under Laine Jenkins. 

Mr. Yuen responded that the Airport would probably have more protection 
because the other contractor is proposing to erect plywood barriers to 
keep people out of the area. Mr. Jenkins is proposing to use plastic 
sheets . 

Mr. Jenkins interrupted Mr. Yuen and said that the area must be boarded up 
with plywood. He argued that if this work could be done in other than a 
manual effort he could easily meet the price. 

Commissioner Stephens said that if the contractor has bid too low that is 
his problem. 

Mr. Jenkins argued that the contractor is not going to do the work 
manually. He said that his bid provides for the work being performed 
manually, as per his discussion with Dr. Fowler. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Yuen if he was satisfied that ECU'S bid was 
responsible and if Dr. Fowler has looked at how ECU plans to do the work. 

Mr. Yuen said that they will work together. 

Mr. Yuen added that staff met with Mr. Jenkins and he was given the 
opportunity to lower his price, which was originally $217,000. 

Mr. Jenkins told the Commission that he was aware of ECU'S bid before he 
worked up his bid and he knew that the work could not be done for that 
price. 

Commissioner Stephens asked Mr. Yuen to talk to Dr. Fowler and make sure 
that the manual versus non-manual method is not a problem. 

Mr. Jenkins argued that Dr. Fowler has not been notified by ECU about this 
problem. 



Commissioner Stephens said that the Airport-Art Joint Committee met 
yesterday to discuss a piece of sculpture by Manuel Neri anticipated for 
Lounge 11, the Hub in the North Terminal. He showed the Commission a 
photo of the sculpture and said it will cost the Airport $60,000. He said 
he thought the piece was fabulous. 

Mr. Yuen said that there was considerable discussion regarding the 
potential problem of vandalism and the possibility of the sculpture being 
used for graffitti. He said that Commissioner Stephens has suggested that 
the piece could be placed in Lounge 11 but could be moved to a more public 
area in the event there is a problem. 

Mr. Yuen said that the Commission must vote to approve the purchase. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, explained that the money 
cannot be expended without a vote. 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 5 



PENDING LEGISLATION: 

1. Report on State Legislation 

Mr. Yuen asked Peter Nardoza, Assistant Deputy Director of Business 
and Finance, to report to the Commission. 

Mr. N^fdoza said that the report is self-explanatory. He did tell 
the Commission that they should have received a correction to the 
report in yesterday's mail which explained that AB1801, the noise 
bill the Commission has been interested in, is not on the Governor's 
desk. He said that although the bill has been passed by both Houses 
of the Legislature the author requested that it be held in a 
conference committee so that interested parties could approach the 
Governor to determine whether or not he wanted any amendments that 
would then allow him to sign this legislation. Mr. Nardoza explained 
that the Governor has vetoed this same piece of legislation in the 
past. 

Mr. Nardoza said that the information on the other three bills before 
the Commission is self-explanatory. He said he would be happy to 
make any communication to Mr. Ed Gerber on the Commission's behalf. 

Mr. Nardoza reminded the Commission that the Legislature will end its 
session at the end of this month. 

Commissioner Goosby asked to which noise bill Mr. Nardoza was 
referri ng . 

Mr. Nardoza responded that this is the Robinson Bill which would 
declare Airport noise to be permanent rather than continuing and, as 
a permanent nuisance, a nearby resident could sue the Airport only 
once and not on an on-going basis. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

The following is a verbatim transcript of Item #2. 

2. Resolution Amending Rules and Regulations 
Ground Transportation Operations 

No. 86-0191 Resolution amending Airport Rules and 

Regulations govening commercial ground 
transportation operations. 

Mr. Yuen: Pursuant to the Commission's instructions at the last 
Commission meeting, the staff has revised the Rules and Regulations 
and it is now before you, and I think there are people who would like 
to address the i ssue. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: I'll move the staff recommendation. 

Commissioner Goosby: Second it, so it's before us. 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 6 



Commissioner Bernstein: I'd like to offer an amendment to it. I'd 
like to bring the ^0<t charge ^own to 35£ so that it is 25£ and ^<t 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: I'll accept the amendment. 
Commissioner Goosby: I'll second. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Comments? 



Commissioner Bernstein: Are there any comments? Mr. Conklin from 
Alamo Rent-A-Car. Do you want to speak on it? 



Mr. Conklin: We definitely have no objection to the revised rate 
structure in terms of courtesy vehicles. We do have one other 
concern with the proposed regulation and that's a possible inadver- 
tent violation on page 18 of the headway restriction. And that says 
that "...every operator of a courtesy vehicle shall maintain average 
headways between its courtesy vehicles of not less than five 
minutes." There are occasions where due to traffic congestion or 
matters beyond the control of the operator or driver that there may 
be a less than five minute interval and we certainly don't want to 
inadvertently violate that section and be subject to revocation and 
sanctions by the Airport authority, so I think there has to be some 
allowance for violating that section where congestion at the Airport 
or other factors have created a less than five minute interval 
between the vehicles. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: That's average. It doesn't say anything 
about a specif ic. .. it means 12 an hour, is what it means. 



Mr. Conklin: Well, I'll take that interpretation. If you feel it's 
an average of five minutes, I have no problem. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Twelve an hour. 



Mr. Conklin: Other than that we have no objections to the proposed 
amendments. Thank you. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. Mr. Leonoudakis of the Airporter 
Commissioner Tsougarakis: Three minutes, Steve. 



Mr. Steve Leonoudakis: Good morning, members of the Commission. I 
have a couple of questions I would like to first ask of Mr. 
Garibaldi. The plain reading of the revised set of regulations would 
seem to indicate that anybody that happens to get a permit from the 
PUC to serve the Airport will automatically be allowed onto the 
Airport and be governed by these rules. For example, if a new van 
operator came on, received a permit from the PUC, he would be granted 
a permit, is that correct? 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 7 



Mr. Don Garibaldi: If he satisfies all th e "'-port's rp^uirements 
for the issuance of a permit. It requires a performance bond, 
liability insurance, that sort of thing. And he must agree to sign 
our permit. 

Mr. Leonoudakis: Right. And without limitation. Here's the real 
problem that I have. There seems to be no limitation as to the 
numbers of vehicles that any van operator can bring onto the 
premises. There is some discretionary language in the Director, but, 
and here's the real problem, the PUC has taken the posture of deregu- 
lation so they issue five or six more permits and they take the same 
posture that SuperShuttle has taken, for example. Today they have 35 
vans and soon they will have another 10, that will be 45, and soon 
they will be serving the Peninsula and Santa Clara County. There 
could conceivably be 100 vans next year and 200 vans the following 
year and there's nothing in the language of this document that shows 
"there is any way to limit the number of vans save and except that 
there is some discretionary authority on the part of the Director of 
the Airport. For example, the 40£ isn't going to do it. It 
certainly isn't, but there should be a paragraph that relates to 
headways with reference to vans. As I understand, all of the other 
van operators except SuperShuttle are willing to accept the same 
limitation that you have on courtesy vehicles, that is to say, no 
more than every five minutes can a van come on and no more than 20 in 
an hour. Now, in fairness to all of us ... (interrupted by 
Commissioner Goosby). 



Commissiner Goosby: That's still in here. 



Mr. Leonoudakis: No, that's only for courtesy vehicles. Those are 
the vehicles that serve the hotels, the parking lots and the motels 
That' s on page 18. 



Commissioner Goosby: Right. 



Mr. Leonoudakis: I would urge you to put in that limitation other- 
wise there is this potential of the biggest fish getting bigger, 
bigger and bigger and pretty soon there is no way to limit. 



Commissioner Stephens: Mr. Leonoudakis, was that something that was 
changed from the prior rules? Was it in there before this amend- 
ment? The headway limitation before this amendment. 

Mr. Leonoudakis: No. You never had a headway limitation as to vans. 
You've always had a headway limitation as to courtesy vehicles 
because the automobile rent-a-car people started to impact the road- 
ways, as I understand it, more and more and so finally they intro- 
duced a rule that said you can't come on here more than 20 in an hour 
or every five minutes. And my problem with SuperShuttle is that one 
hour that I stood there when they were doing their thing. ..( inter- 
rupted by Commission Goosby). 



Commissioner Goosby: The Director has the power under this... as he 
recommended it to us, the minimum headways shall be based upon the 
Director's assessment of the capacity and usage of the Airport's 
roadways as well as the quality of the transportation ... that ' s in the 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 8 



case of the ?t h p- 



Mr. Leonoudakis: In the case of the other vehicles, the courtesy 
vehicles, you have something specific in the regulations that says 
"...not more than every five minutes." My experience when I was down 
there, there was one hour in which SuperShuttle made 122 loops in an 
hour. Was that okay then? Is it going to be okay as we go down- 
stream 7 How about the other van operators .. .today they have four 
vans, perhaps they will grow to 10 or 20 or 50. I don't know. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: I would suggest that we need to get some 
experience with the new rules and regulations and with the paragraph 
that Commissioner Goosby just cited, we will have the opportunity to 
amend the headways as required, or the Director will. 



Mr. Leonoudakis: Then there's one section in here, I also ask Mr. 
Garibaldi if he would. ..it's on page 2 and this is with reference to 
the red and white zone. And it says that "...no vehicle shall stop, 
wait or park in any area adjacent to the curb which is painted red 
and white except those vehicles operated by ground transportation 
carriers with upper level permits only." Okay, these are the vans 
that we're talking about. And then it says "...and taxis without an 
Airport permit may stop at this zone while actively engaged in load- 
ing or unloading passengers and/or baggage." Who are taxis without 
Airport permits? Are they the people from San Jose? 



Mr. Garibaldi: That's correct. Other than San Francisco taxicabs. 
Those that don't go through the taxicab lot but have a prearrangement 
with some passenger to pick them up or drop them off. 



Mr. Leonoudakis: All right. Now, the problem I have with that is we 
have a requirement for pre-arranged here and we all understand in the 
industry what "pre-arranged" means. The one thing it doesn't mean is 
flagging a cab down. You can't flag a cab down under any of the 
rules up until now at the Airport. You should not be permi tted. . .now 
here's a cab that's on the premises and if he's got a flag down, 
under these rules now, he can go ahead and pick anybody up he wants 
to because under your definition of pre-arranged, and this is on page 
4, pre-arranged is excellent until you get to page 4 where it says 
for the purposes of the rules "...pre-arranged shall mean and include 
flagging down by a passenger of a commercial ground transportation 
vehicle. " 



Mr. Garibaldi: Not a taxicab. Taxicabs are separate from our 
definition of ground transportation. 



Mr. Leonoudakis: All right. Here's what your giving the vans, 
you're giving them a place with a sign, a location, each one of them 
is going to have... Good Neighbor's is going to have a sign, as I 
understand it, SuperShuttle will have a sign. ..every customer will 
know exactly where his carrier is supposed to be. Downtown Express. 
He comes and he lines up in that given place. Why do you give them 
the additional right to allow passengers to hail anybody down. You 
don't allow it elsewhere. It is not inimicable to the definition of 
what we understand in the industry as pre-arranged or on-demand. 
It's bad enough that you allow them to radio dispatch and do these 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 9 



other things but to allow them to have *"his language in here leaves 
your police with no ability at all to enrorce the section that deals 
rtich solicitation. None whatsoever. And I've asked, time and again, 
that that particular language of flagging down be removed because it 
is... these are on-demand operators. They are supposed to have a 
pre-arrangement with a customer. They have a pre-arrangement when 
they pick up in the city. You know, if they did this in the City the 
taxi detail would come down on their back and say look, you have a 
permit to operate on-demand, that's what the PUC said. You have to 
have a weigh bill, you have to have a customer's name, you have to 
have an arrangement with that customer prior to picking them up. You 
can't cruise the hotels and wait for somebody to raise their hand and 
flag them down. You're now operating like a taxicab. You can't let 
that happen in the City, they'll destroy the cab business as we 
understand it. That jurisdiction, that work effort belongs exclu- 
sively to the cab industry in San Francisco and they can't wedge 
their way in and come in through the side door and I urge you not to 
allow that language to remain... the flagging down. Require them to 
be pre-arranged. You've given them half the place as it is and I 
would ask that that particular paragraph be stri cken . . . the language 
that starts "...for the purpose of rules, pre-arranged shall mean and 
i nclude f laggi ng down ..." 



Commissioner Goosby: What page did you say? Four? 
Mr. Leonoudakis: This is on page 4. 



Commissioner Stephens: Jason, why do we have that in there? Why do 
we allow them to flag down, SuperShuttle, if they have a location? 



Mr. Yuen: I'll let Angela respond to that. 



Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director of Business and Finance: The 
idea of this was we were recognizing the passenger's right and the 
passenger's choice of a vehicle. These are on the upper level; the 
passenger has clearly made a choice of an on-demand carrier. They 
have not chosen Airporter, they have not chosen a taxicab. They have 
gone upstairs. They have not chosen a limousine. 



Commissioner Goosby: If all the carriers are going to have signs, 

Angela, when they line up behind a sign they have made a choice, 
right? 

Mr. Gittens: That's right. 



Commissioner Stephens: Yes, what but you're saying is on the way to 
line up behind that sign they have definitely committed by going to 
that location; that they are not going to get on an Airporter and 
they are not going to take a taxi. 



Ms. Gittens: It's clear to us that they have committed 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 10 



Mr. Yuen: That'< right. They have to make a spe r,: >i pf^ort f ^ go 
upstairs with their baggage in order to do this. 



Commissioner Stephens: Once they have made that commitment, Mr. 
Leonoudakis, why would you object... I mean once they have said that 
they are not going to use the Airporter why do you care if they flag 
it down or not? 



Mr. Leonoudakis: Well, because it is a form of reverse solicita- 
tion. First of all, I don't believe that what's happening here 
should be happening in the industry and I'd like to address that in a 
minute, but if there's a sign and a person has selected to stand 
beside the sign of SuperShuttle he's made his selection to ride 
SuperShuttle. There shouldn't be visible demonstrations by these 
folks to haul someone down. They're supposed to make a telephone 
call and make a pre-arrangement. It is just one of those extra 
little things that is destroying the ground transportation industry, 
and I'll get into that in a minute, by allowing this proliferation of 
additional carriers. 




Mr. Leonoudakis: Right 



Commissioner Stephens: Do you have this agreement that once they 
have come to the upper level they have made the decision to take 
SuperShuttle? 



Mr. Leonoudakis: I believe that violates my contract and I'll get 
into that in a minute. 



Commissioner Stephens: But that's a different... 
Commissioner Tsougarakis: But you can't sue the passenger 
Mr. Leonoudakis: No, I'm not going to sue the passenger. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: It's a matter of free choice and he 
doesn't know the difference between the fact that he can get on your 
bus without solicitation or without pre-arrangement and not get on 
the van without pre-arrangement. He doesn't know that. All he wants 
to do is get on whatever means of transportation he thinks is going 
to work for him. And if he goes upstairs he's made a commitment to 
that decision. 



Mr. Leonoudakis: Then let me digress for a moment, if I might 
Anyway, I think I hear the message loud and clear from the 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 11 



Commission. It appears that it is your decision, at least in the 
area of ground transportation, to provide the public with what you 
feel is first class ground transportation service into San Francisco 
by any and all kinds of shapes and sizes of carriers. 

Let me give you just a little history because I've been down at the 
Airport about 37 years starting as a postal clerk and going through a 
lot of other ventures down there, but historically, in the beginning 
the ground transportation at the Airport was served by three 
principle carriers, the taxicabs, the limousines and the large buses. 
Now, all of these carriers had exclusive contracts and they were 
given exclusive contracts because they had substantial investments. 
In our case over $5-mi 1 1 i on . Other people who serve at the Airport, 
who make substantial investments, like the food purveyor, who also 
has a multi-million dollar investment, he has an exclusive contract 
to serve that food. Now, but since, what has happened to us in the 
last 10 years, first the Airport allowed SamTrans to come onto the 
property. Let me tell you, there are 15 new carriers on the Airport 
all serving the same market, taking a person from the Airport and 
providing him with a ride into San Francisco or the adjacent area. 
Fifteen have been added when you started out with originally just 
three. But SamTrans came on and they put in four routes, two of them 
express, practically, and they came in with a fare of 90£, which is 
very attractive. And if you read the papers recently they are carry- 
ing 1500 plus passengers from the Airport. They took a big piece of 
the market. Then, following SamTrans we had the intro- duction of 
Airport Services for Marin, Sonoma, Santa Rosa, Ukiah, Vallejo, 
Oakland, Sacramento, Airport Connection and so forth. Now, it may be 
all right that you allow them all in and that you want this first 
class service. If you're going to allow them in, and obviously 
you're going to by these rules, now allow yet a new segment of 
carriers. First we had Lorries, then we had Good Neighbor, Downtown 
Express, these are all the van operators, Airport Service and, 
ultimately, SuperShuttle . 

The van operators pay nothing to the Airport, up until now. SamTrans 
has never paid the Airport a dime. All these other carriers I 
mentioned pay, I think $100 a month. Now, under the regs you are 
asking for 40£ for each loop. Let me tell you that this market has 
been decimated. Many of our buses leave with two, three and four 
passengers. Let me also remind you that we are the carrier that has 
the obligation to the Airport to provide 15 minute headways. That 
means that I have to employ 185 union organized people. I have to 
provide a bus garage, a bus parking facility, I have to provide a 
downtown terminal; over $1 -mi 1 1 i on it cost us. But we're invested 
now at $5-mi 1 1 ion , maybe more. We provide you with 15 minute head- 
ways. Every 15 minutes a bus leaves the Airport. Each one of those 
buses, the new ones, cost us $180,000 a piece. All we're asking for 
is that if you're going to allow a competitve carrier who on many 
occasions take more people from the Airport than we do, give us an 
equitable and fair rate. Charge us on the same basis. You've got 15 
carriers plus 860 taxicabs, plus the limousine service, plus our 
service. By way of example, you are charging SuperShuttle or the van 
operators 40£, and now did I hear that it was amended to 35#? 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: Yes. 



Mr. Leonoudakis: Okay. Actually they carry six passengers, they're 
paying St a passenger. I'm required to provide the terminal, the 
equipment, the drivers, the headways and everything else and I tell 
you truthfully there are many of our buses that leave there with 
fewer passengers than any of the van operators do that are upstairs. 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 12 



Liiaryt us at the same rate, in fairness, We 11 continue to provide 
the headways, we'll continue to provide the terminal facilities, 
we'll continue to provide the new buses and so forth but it seems 
eminently unfair to me to ask us to do all those other things, which 
we have done, and we've never missed our commiment to the Airport. 
In all these years the market has been eroded substantially and I 
really ask, if I get nothing more, forget the waiving down and so 
forth, give us a fair break on the charge per passenger carrier. 
Thank you very much. Any questions. 



Commissioner Goosby: You remarks fall on sympathetic ears, Mr. 
Leonoudaki s . 



Mr. Leonoudakis: Then I'd appreciate a motion to reduce the charge 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: That's a separate issue that we can look 
at. Anybody el se. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Ms. Lenvin 



Ms. Nancy Lenvin: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Lenvin 
representing SuperShuttle. 

What I'd like to say this morning is thank you for your patience and 
concern regarding all these issues. We are really down to only one 
and that is the bottom line of the charge. SuperShuttle initially, 
as well as the other van operators, had talked to the staff and to 
you about a 20?: per pass trip. While SuperShuttle has no objection 
to a two tier system to assist the hotel and courtesy vehicles they 
really had believed that the 40?! that you had passed last time was 
too high and still object to the 350 . What they can live with is, in 
fact, the 30?:. Unfortunately, it's hard to understand ... the numbers 
have to be translated to real live dollars. We had calculated that 
at present levels each 10?! increment meant the difference between 
$20,000 a year. Obviously, a nickle is approximately $10,000, but 
that number increases as you begin to increase and expand the 
service. The key for SuperShuttle is one that the fee at this time 
...I'm sorry Commissioner, you're looking confused. If you have more 
trips you pay more money. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: I believe in the large economy size 
That's why I have trouble with that. Anyway, go ahead. 



Ms. Lenvin: What SuperShuttle, as a carrier is concerned about is 
one, it was interested in holding its present fare structure. That 
what it is providing is a door-to-door service; that we think about 
is businesses and tourists going to the Airport but you have to 
remember that senior citizens are using this service. It is a safe, 
reliable way to get from home without having to go someplace else out 
to the Airport. And, you have to remember that while some neighbor- 
hoods have been discriminated against by taxicabs, SuperShuttle is 
going to outlying neighborhoods and providing door-to-door transit 
for folks in the Sunset, Hunter's Point, Western Addition to save 
those people trips to other areas. So in fact there is a public 
service that needs to be kept on a competitive basis because in fact 
what Super Shuttle has shared its passenger statistics with the 
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and, in fact, we believe there 
will be a for the van technology because the transit experts are 

Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 13 



great support sawing uo^, for thp very first time there is a chanro 
of removing people from private cars. In fact, the SuperShuttle van 
mechanism, with its high quality, low price service is in fact 
reducing congestion at the Airport. It's a good partner, it's not an 
adversary. So, we are here to urge that the fee go to the 300 level; 
tnat you commit to keep the fee for at least a year so that everybody 
can take a look at budgets, see how it goes so that business people 
can plan budgets given the scheme; and, SuperShuttle urgently asks 
you and earnestly asks you to reinstitute the five percent or fifty 
trip leeway and discount. Given the operation of these vans you have 
people that you heard extensive testimony that there comes a time 
when every operator, no matter how good, needs to come back to a 
passenger. Things happen often enough in the carrying of people that 
you need that flexibility without penalizing the carrier. And so we 
would again urge that the five percent or 50 trip leeway that was 
originaly proposed by your staff be reinstituted and placed back in. 
Although there maybe some additional problems with the rules and the 
implementation mechanisms I have been assured by Mr. Turpen that 
these can be worked out and SuperShuttle is prepared to work with 
your senior staff to achieve a workable mechanism to achieve these 
goals. So, the only thing we are asking today is to please put the 
fee back to 300, which is indeed high. 



Commissioner Goosby: What do you mean back? It's never been 300, it 
was $1 .00. 



Ms. Lenvin: I understand. We had been urging at 200; we had 
believed that 300 was a fair and equitable fee. Indeed, there is no 
question that we'd all been talking among ourselves, to your staff 
and with you regarding what we believed was a mechanism that achieved 
revenue for the Airport, a fee against the van operators but one that 
was not going to unduly penalize an industry, which in fact is 
probably your best shot at reducing congestion. And so, given all 
the benefits, we thought that that level, which is still high to all 
the operators, would be a fair beginning mechanism. And, my client 
has also asked us to thank you for your patience and consideration on 
these issues over these last several months. Thank you. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Nancy, before you leave I'd just like to 
tell you, remind you that this is a change in procedure and this is 
also subject to change if it doesn't work out. I'd also like to tell 
you, and I've just been talking to Commissioner Stephens about it and 
he agrees with me, I've just been handed some numbers, because I 
asked for it, and at 250 and 350 it shows a deficit to the Airport, a 
loss to the Airport of $988,000 a year. Now. . . ( i nterrupted by Ms. 
Lenvin) 



Ms. Lenvin: Mr. Bernstein, I have seen. ..I have a great deal of 
respect for Ms. Gi t tens and the staff but that assumes that every 
user of the roadway has to have a percentage share. 



Commissioner Bernstein: No, it may be the staff's opinion but I 
don't it's any of the Commission's opinion. I don't think that we're 
asking that everything pay its way. Otherwise we'd have to lock 
every toilet and go on and on and on. However, I must tell you... 



Ms. Lenvin: But, if we just stayed with the ground side 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 14 



Commissioner Bernstein: ...somewhere alona the line we had to start 
and mis was a start. And it's subject to review. If you'd like to 
look, at the figures I'd be delighted to show them to you. 



Ms. Lenvin: I have seen. Your staff has been very forthcoming with 
the figures. The almost $ 1 -mi 1 1 i on figure would reduce. ..at the 
moment, the way your budgeting works and the agreements and the 
settlement agreement with the airlines is that I understand and we 
can all recognize the good faith effort on the part of the Airport 
and this Commission to reduce the amount of the subsidy which the 
airlines pay. But, there is that good faith is not ... (changed tape) 
the general fund and the balance will be a carry-over to next fiscal 
year and reduce the amount that the airlines have to plug in to cover 
your costs. 



Commissioner Bernstein: But there is such a thing as correct 
business procedure. 



Ms. Lenvin: Nell, the question is your public interest and either 
your going to decide, which is perfectly legitimate, I disagree, but 
it's a legitimate decision to say okay, we're going to reduce the 
airline dollars versus subsidizing the other one. 



Commissioner Bernstein: I assure you that every Commissioner has 
poured over these things and has studied these things. 



Commissioner Goosby: We've read all these arguments many times 



Commissioner Bernstein: We have studied these things over countless 
hours and I'm not so certain that at this moment that we have two 
that are in agreement. But, we must start somewhere and I think this 
is perhaps a starting point. But I just wanted you to know... I don't 
know and we're going to study it again, at least I am, where the loss 
occurs and I realize all the good will and the things that are 
necessary in the conduct of a business but we do lose $988,000 at 
that rate. And, I must admit that it's a lot of money. I don't know 
where it is but I'd be delighted to show it to you when we finish. 



Ms. Lenvin: I'd be delighted, but I don't think that that's your 
loss figure. But as long as you make the decision up front here that 
that's where your rules are... 



Commissioner Bernstein: All the decisions were made up front. We're 
not on a commission basis. 



Commissioner Stephens: Thank you. 

Ms . Lenvi n : Thank you . 

Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Andy DePaule, Good Neighbors Air Bus. 

Minutes, August 19. 1986, Page 15 



Mr. DePaule: Th*nk vou for your time. My name is Andv OePaule, Good 
Neighbors Air Bus. If I may, Mr. Jim Clapp, who is the attorney for 
i_urries had written a letter which he is not able to attend the 
meeting today. I'd like to give a copy of the letter to you and also 
to read it into the record, if possible. Also, some photographic 
evidence which was given to me a little while ago will show, I think, 
part of the problem that we've been trying to deal with. 



Origi nal 
Airport' 
being ca 
this cha 
that con 
control . 
advance, 
hour, th 
problems 
floods t 
van serv 
there, 
could, I 



ly, one of the ma 
s major problem w 
used at the red a 
rge, whatever it 
gestion as long a 
As long as the 

can raise the nu 
ere ' s no way to c 

has been that of 
he red and white 
ices even being a 
By the time they 
1 1 1 go ahead and 



in problems here it was suggested that the 
ith the van services was the congestion 
nd white zones and we feel that even with 
winds up being, there's still going to be 
s there's no control on headways, no real 
Airport Director, just by being warned in 
mber of trips for any company in any given 
ontrol the congestion. And one of the 
the five operators, one of them continually 
zone to the point of the exclusion of other 
ble to get in to see if their people are 
get there their people are gone. If I 
read this letter. 



Mr. Yuen: Excuse me. Since you have given copies to the Commission 
and the Secretary will put that in the record, is it necessary to 
read the letter? 



Commissioner Stephens: We'll just agree that it's in the record 



Commissioner Bernstein: Are you going to read that now 7 It really 
isn't necessary. If you're going to read it we may as well give you 
back the. . . 



Mr. DePaule: Okay. Maybe I can just outline it briefly. 



Commissioner Bernstein: We will read it. 



Commissioner Stephens: Just accept it into the record 



Mr. DePaule: Okay. Thank you. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. 



Commissioner Goosby: There will be headways established. We already 
mentioned that. There will be headways established. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Well, he's got the capability of doing it. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Ms. Jacqueline Cobb, Parking Company of 
Ameri ca. 



Ms. Cobb: I'm Jacqueline Cobb from Parking Company of America. In 
the letter we got last week on proposed prices per trip you had the 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 16 



courtesy vans for 25?: and ail other vans hi -rO?!. We were not sure 
• !h it category we fell into so we called Jerry Copelan who told us we 
would fall into the 25?! courtesy van. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: What's the name of your company? 



Ms. Cobb: Parking Company of America. At the first of the meeting 
did you say that the 25?: had gone to 35?! also. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: No. 

Ms. Cobb: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood 



Commissioner Stephens: Two tiered, 25?! and 35?!. It was 25?! and 40?! 
before. 



Ms. Cobb: What we understand is that... we wanted the two tier ones 
because we are restricted to 20 trips to the Airport and I understand 
on the other ones that are paying the extra amount can have as many 
trips around the Airport as they want. We would like to see in the 
papers that the off-Airport parking lots are included in the 25?! 
ones. Right now it just shows the motels/hotels and rental cars. It 
does not show us in their at all. 



Commissioner Goosby: Well, you're in there. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: Yeah, you're in there. Parking? 



Ms. Cobb: Okay, we wanted to make sure. There's three off-Airport 
parki ng. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: I understand that. 

Ms. Cobb: And I just wanted to make sure we were in there 

Commissioner Goosby: Yeah, you're in there. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: That's our understanding. 

Ms. Cobb: Thank you. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: It is the understanding of the Airport 
Commission that that off-Airport parking is included in courtesy 
vehicles . 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 17 



Ms. Gittens. I ..i sc.y, that was inadvertantly uniittui 
correct that. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: But that is the Commission's understanding. 
Commissioner Bernstein: Ms. Hartman. Would you like to say anything? 
Ms. Hartman: Everything we wanted to ask has already been asked. 
Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. Mr. Eldon Johnson, charter buses. 



Mr. Johnson: Commissioners, I represent several charter bus 
companies. We have a slightly different point. We would like to 
urge the restoration of the low level cut-off point. Some of the 
charter bus companies in slow months run only ten trips a month. 
That's writing a check for $3.50. That really dosen't make any 
sense. The record keeping associated with that and this low level 
indicates that somewhere, at some level there ought to be a cut-off. 



Commissioner Stephens: Is this the five percent exemption that we 
used to have? 



Mr. Johnson: No. This is the 50. 

Commissioner Goosby: Fifty free trips. 

Mr. Johnson: The 50 trips. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: Five percent or 50 trips 



Commissioner Stephens: I'll tell you. We talked about that and I 
think what we decided is to take a look at it. We don't want to 
collect $3.50 either. I think that will take care of itself. If it 
turns out that way then we'll amend it later. 



Mr. Johnson: Well, my urging is 50 is a good number. Twenty-five is 
a good number but certainly there ought to be some low level where 
you don't get involved in this small amount. Thank you. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you Mr. Johnson. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: In other words, the notion is that we're 
going to review that after experience. 



Commissioner Stephens: If we get a bunch of $3.50 checks I'm sure 
the staff will come back to us. 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 18 



Mr. Yuen: The Commission ran always amend the rules and the rates 



Commissioner Bernstein: All right, anything else 9 Let's take a vote 
on i t . 



Commissioner Goosby: That's all the speakers 7 
Commissioner Bernstein: That's all the speakers on that 
Commissioner Goosby: Okay. 
Commissioner Tsougarakis: Call the roll. 
Commissioner Bernstein: Would you call the roll. 



Mr. Yuen: Let me get this clear first. The approval now is on the 
regulations as amended by what the Commission brought up today... 
25£/35£. 



Commissioner Goosby: We're approving it. 



Commission Secretary: Commissioner Bernstein: Yes. 

Commissioner Goosby: Yes 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: Yes 

Commissioner Stephens: Yes 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

3. Authorization to Bid: 

Boarding Area E - Principal Concession Lease 

No. 86-0192 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to accept bids for Boarding 
Area E - Principal Concession Lease 
and Agreement for Retail Merchandising 
Sales in the North Terminal. 

Mr. Yuen said that staff conducted a pre-bid conference and drafted a 
lease which is before the Commission for approval. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what the minimum is. 

Ms. Gi t tens responded that the minimum was reduced from $600,000 to 
$500,000. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Dattani , of Dattani and Company, if 
he wished to address the Commission. 

Mr. Dattani said he is a partner of one of the potential bidders for 
this concession. He asked the Commission to consider making this 
concession a set aside for minorities and/or women. He told the 
Commission that concessions in airports around the country are 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 19 



beqinnina to look like stereotypes because participation and 
ownership are the same big corporations projecting the same image, 
the same goods, and the same high prices. He said that they have 
subtenants who are minorities or women in order to meet the HRC 
requirements but the method of doing business is controlled by the 
principal tenant. He said that there is really no true impetus to 
minorities or women to bring out their entrepreneurial spirit and 
maximize their abilities to conduct a business. 

Mr. Dattani also said that big corporations can submit large bids in 
order to retain a foothold in airport concessions. He said that 
these large corporations can afford to run operations at a loss if 
need be. He felt that this concession is small enough for large, 
established corporations to let go of but large enough for minorities 
and women to pick up as principal tenants. He said it was his 
understanding that there are only two principals out of 20 or more at 
SFO. He urged the Commission to establish this concession as a set 
aside for minority/women only. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he did not know of any large corporations 
that would deliberately run an operation at a loss. 

Mr. Dattani argued that large corporations can afford to make 
outrageous assumptions. He said that this concession would give a 
minority the opportunity to come in as a principal tenant rather than 
as a subtenant. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Gittens if the City Attorney's opinion 
on set asides was still the same and if the City was still in court 
on the original case. He said that this case was predicated on the 
fact that our remedies under this ordinance to increase the number of 
minorities and women participating in City contracts have been 
exhausted. He said it was his inclination, as well as that of the 
rest of the Commission, to establish set asides but that action would 
be contrary to the City Attorney's opinion. He said that even though 
set asides are not permitted under this ordinance, City departments 
must make every effort to voluntarily give 30 or 35 percent of their 
business to minorities and five or 10 percent to women. 

Commissioner Goosby added that five years ago the City Attorney said 
that it was legal for City departments to set aside on the basis of 
small business. He said that the City Attorney felt he could defend 
a small business set aside on the grounds that he is protecting the 
interests of local small businessmen. He asked Ms. Gittens if this 
concession could be established as a small business set aside. 

Ms. Gittens told Commissioner Goosby that although this is small for 
a principal concession it is still a large concession and the 
experience requirements are such that a small business person alone 
would not even be eligible to bid. She said that the capital 
Investment requirements to build the shop, not including inventory, 
is about $200,000 and the bid is $500,000. Staff did look at the 
possibility of a 100 percent set aside but since the Airport awarded 
45 percent of concession leases last year to minorities or women the 
Airport has no basis for needing a set aside to try and meet our 
goal s. 

Mr. Dattani asked if Ms. Gittens was referring to 45 percent of 
principal tenants or subtenants. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it included both. 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 20 



Commissioner Goosbv felt the nnints were well taken. He said that 
although he had received information from the staff that this 
concession was too large to set aside for a minority he felt members 
of the audience would benefit from the explanation. 

Mr. Dattani urged the Commission to reconsider. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Benny Tan if he wished to address the 
Commi ssion . 

Mr. Tan said that as an Airport sublessee he has grown to the point 
where he feels he can put together a small business that can bid on a 
lease of this size as a joint venture, if not alone. He said he has 
approached the Commission before on small business set asides. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Garibaldi to explain the legal 
restraints of a set aside. 

Mr. Garibaldi explained that it is the opinion of the City Attorney's 
Office that a department cannot specifically set aside a concession 
for minorities and women due to provisions in the California 
Constitution. He said that a concept was developed authorizing set 
asides for small business enterprises with the idea that they would 
probably constitute minority or women owned businesses. In that way 
we are able to try to set aside some of these concessions for 
minorities and still stay within the law. He said that the idea was 
to protect local businesses who are small business enterprises. Mr. 
Garibaldi said that it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office 
that that is as far as we can go under the law without being subject 
to successful legal challenge. 

Mr. Tan said that that was all he was asking and he would support the 
Commission's view. He thanked the Commission for using small 
business set asides and said that those set asides have historically 
gone to minorities or women. 

Commissioner Goosby wondered if Mr. Dattani and Mr. Tan felt that 
they could bid this concession in a joint venture, run the operation 
and make money under the current specifications. He said that he 
respects staff's judgment that this particular concession might be 
too large as a set aside for small business but he felt that if 
enough small businessmen thought it was manageable then perhaps staff 
should reevaluate the situation. He said he was sympathetic towards 
making this a set aside for small business but he did not feel he had 
the necessary votes on the Commission. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if a small business joint venture was 
precluded for this concession lease. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it was not. She said that one -of the 
criticisms received from previous principal concessions was that the 
larger minority and women-owned firms were precluded from bidding 
because no matter who won the bid they had to subcontract out 20, 25, 
30, 35 percent. She said that this is one lease where everyone can 
bid. 



The following item was put over. 

4. Luggage Carts 

Commissioner Bernstein said that this item would be put over until 
Commissioner Fleishell's return. 

Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 21 



Mr Yupp reminded Commissioner Bernstein 4-K; >t » r ommissioner hart to 
be appointed to represent the Airport's position to the Mayor. 

Commissioner Bernstein said Commissioner Fleishell will be appointed 

Commissioner Goosby suggested that the Committee might consist of 
both Commissioners Fleishell and Bernstein. He said that Mayor 
Feinstein must be reminded that this was discussed two years ago. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis thought that the Los Angeles study was 
interesting. 



5. Bid Call - Airport Cotract No. 1752: 

Maintenance Building Roofing Over Republic Airlines Hangar 

No. 86-0193 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1752 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



6. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1753: 

Emergency Underground, Hazardous Material, Storage Tanks and Removal 
and Related Work 

No. 86-0194 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1753 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



The following item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

7. Modification of professional Services Agreement - Steve Gregory 

No. 86-0195 Modification of agreement with Steve 

Gregory for further services in an 
amount not to exceed $10,000.00. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked for an explanation. 

Commissioner Goosby wanted to know how long Mr. Gregory worked for 
the City. He was trying to reconcile loyalty to ones job and the 
City with this item. He said that Mr. Gregory has already charged 
the City $20,000 to feed back to the attornies information he picked 
up during the performance of his job at the Airport, and is now 
asking for an additional $10,000. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis argued that the cost covers his time. 

Commissioner Goosby said he is disappointed in human nature when a 
former employee charges the City to give information to our attornies 
in order to try this case. He asked if Mr. Gregory had been 
supervised or if another employee worked under him who would have the 
same information and who is still working for the City. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that Mr. Gregory was responsible for the day 
to day supervision of this project. He said that while there are 
records, the day to day conversations become important in litigation 
and Mr. Gregory was a participant in those conversations and directly 

Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 22 



supervised what the rnnfractor was doing on the job. Mr Garibaldi 
said that Mr. Gregory made a lot of the decisions that ultimately 
iesulted in the termination of the contract. He explained that the 
practical problem is that whether we have him on contract or not the 
other side can subpoena him for depositions. He said that if the 
orner side does subpoena Mr. Gregory we would not have the opportu- 
nity to consult with him prior to the deposition unless he is on 
contract to the Airport. 

Mr. Garibaldi told the Commission that hopefully there will not be 
any further requests for funds however it is a question of how much 

time Mr. Gregory will have to put in. He reminded the Commission 

that the Airport is being sued for $1 -mi 1 1 i on , and the Airport, in 

turn, is suing the contractor for $l-mi 1 1 ion . He said that he 

believed we will win but Mr. Gregory is needed to help establish our 
case . 

Commissioner Goosby asked where Mr. Gregory is currently working. 

Mr. Garibaldi did not believe that Mr. Gregory is currently employed 

Commissioner Goosby recommended reducing the amount to $5,000. 

Commissioner Stephens seconded the motion. 

The Commission unanimously approved the amended contract in the 
amount of $5,000. 



The following item was adopted by a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner 
Tsougarakis casting the dissenting vote. 

8. Tenant Improvement: 

Airport Hilton Signage Upgrade 
T-3122 - $50,000 - No Cost to City 

No. 86-0196 

Commissioner Tsougarakis motioned approval of the staff recommen- 
dation to eliminate the time/temperature indicator on the sign. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Dick Groves, General Manager of the 
Airport Hilton, if he wished to address the Commission. 

Mr. Groves introduced Mr. Bob McWirter of the Federal Sign Company. 
He said that the issue before the Commission is the acceptability of 
the time/temperature indicator. He showed the Commission a rendering 
of the sign and told them that the design has been approved by the 
Art Commi ssion . 

Commissioner Goosby asked where this sign would be placed. 

Mr. Groves showed the Commission a photo of the vertical pole sign 
that is currently in place and said that the new sign will reach the 
height of the letter "L" in that sign. Mr. Groves said that Hilton 
wanted to make a statement with this new sign. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the problem she had with the 
time/temperature indicator is that people entering the Airport must 
make a very quick decision at the throat of the entry way as to 
whether they will be entering the garage, the upper roadway or the 
lower roadway and she felt the flashing time/temperature read-out 
would be distracting. 

Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 23 



Cwiiimisa loner Bernstein thought then, the sign «as fine. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed that there was nothing wrong with the 
way the sign looked but was concerned that it would be distracting. 

Mr. Groves said that the new sign will be lower, smaller in square 
footage and more legible. 

Mr. Yuen said that Mr. Turpen was concerned that a sign changing from 
time to temperature would catch the eyes of people entering the 
Airport. He said that Mr. Turpen did not feel it was an appropriate 
sign for the Airport. He felt it would attract attention to the 
Hilton sign and be a form of advertising. 

Commissioner Stephens said he liked the sign and asked for an 
amendment to the motion to allow for the time/temperature indicator. 

The Commission, with the exception of Commissioner Tsougarakis, 
agreed to the time/temperature display. 



Commissioner Stephens left the meeting at the call of this item and was 
gone for the remainder of the meeting. 

The following item was amended to include the provision that Commission 
approval is subject to approval by the Airline Affairs Committee. The 
item was unanimously adopted. 

9. Airline Tenant Improvements on Boarding Area 'C 
Contract T-3134 - New Hydrant Fuel System 

No. 86-0197 Resolution approving the plans and 

specifications and authorizing 
construction of a new hydrant fueling 
system on Boarding Area 'C by Air 
California, Delta and Northwest 
Airlines (project budget: $1,741,000). 
Resolution also authorizes reimburse- 
ment of $614,500 maximum to Delta 
Airlines as the Airport's share of the 
project costs. 

Mr. Yuen said that this item approves work for Delta Airlines in the 
new Boarding Area 'C . He said that there is an agreement between 
the Airport and the airlines wherein the airlines pay for one final 
move in the reconstruction program. He said that Delta made that 
move when they moved from the old Central Terminal to the North 
Terminal. He said staff is considering this a temporary move and the 
Airport will therefore pick up the cost and that is why there is a 
reimbursement amount. 

Mr. Yuen said that Mr. Paul Van Nert of United Airlines is not 
certain whether the Airline Affairs Committee has approved this item 
or not. Staff believes that the item has been approved but in order 
to satisfy Mr. Van Wert's concern Mr. Yuen asked the Commission to 
amend the approval subject to the Airline Affairs Committee's 
conf i rmation . 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the item could be put over. 

Mr. Yuen responded that that would prevent Delta from going ahead 
with the project. He said that this allows Delta to go ahead without 
the reimbursement. He explained that there would be no reimbursement 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 24 



until 1no< ' r ~ v<*e K ""' , ,,nf il that time to resolve the is r "~ 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what would happen if the Airline 
Affairs Committee votes against it. 

Mr. Yuen responded that Delta would then have to pick up the entire 
cost. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 
10. Retirement Resolution - Robert F. Green 
No. 86-0198 



Request for Approval of Travel /Training for Airports Commission 
Representati ve 

No. 86-0199 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing was opened at 10:32 AM and closed at 10:34 AM, there 
being no comments from the audience. 

12. Fiscal Year 1986/87 Rates and Charges 

Public Hearing concerning the estab- 
lishment of (1) terminal rental rates; 
and, (2) commercial and general 
aviation landing fees for Fiscal Year 
1986/87 and beyond. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the airlines had any comments. 

Ms. Gittens responded that she sent the Commission a copy of a 
protest from Delta Airlines. After she received the protest she 
spoke with Paul Van Wert, Chairman of the Airline Affairs Committee, 
and was told he was puzzled by Mr. Chamberlain's letter. She said 
that Mr. Van Wert had been out of town for a week and had not been 
able to get the airlines to vote but indicated that the Airport 
should expect a vote of approval before the next meeting. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that the landing fees were down 60£ 
from what they were in 1981/82. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it were possible to put the item over 

Mr. Yuen responded that this was a public hearing and no action was 
necessary at thi s time . 



Minutes, August 19, 1986. Page 25 



Ms. Gittens added that anyone '~ :,1 u :" ; .ig a problem will be able to 
address the Commission at the next meeting. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if Mr. Chamberlain had requested a 
postponement . 

Ms. Gittens said that this is a public hearing. Since Mr. 
Chamberlain was unable to attend the meeting his views were submitted 
in wr i ti ng . 

Mr. Yuen said Mr. Chamberlain will have an opportunity at the next 
meeting to address the Commission. 

The public hearing ended at 10:34 AM. 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:34 AM to go into closed session. 



JeAn Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, August 19, 1986, Page 26 



g(* 



,SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




aox 



6 1987 
PORMC UBPARV 



MINUTES 



SEPTEMBER 16, 1986 

Room 282 - City Hall 
City and County of San Francisco 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TUPPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

September 16, 1986 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



CALL TO ORDER: 3 

ROLL CALL: 3 

ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

August 19, 1986 3 

SPECIAL ITEM: 
1. Election of Officers 3 

DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Airport Pol ice - 
Board of Supervisors 
Memorandum of Under- 
standing 4-6 

3. Report on Electronic 

Information Services 6-7 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 7 

PENDING LEGISLATION: 

4. Report on Status of Selected 

State Legislation 7-8 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

5. Provision of Free Luggage 
Carts to Passengers in 

Customs 8-20 

6. Smarte Carte Request of 

Reconsideration of Cart Design 20 

7. Adoption of Fiscal Year 1986/87 

Rates and Charges 20 



8. Authorization to Bid: 
International Terminal and 
South Terminal Shoeshine 

Leases 21-23 

9. Authorization to Bid: 

Barber/Beauty Shop Lease 24 

10. Lease of Ful 1 Service 
Baggage Storage Concession/ 

Termination of Lease 24 

11. Lease of Cigarette Vending 
Machines in the International 
Terminal at San Francisco 

International Airport 24 

12. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1639: Police Substation 
Offices, 2nd Floor, North 

Connector 24-25 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

13. Type II Modifications for 
Two South Terminal Complex 

Construction Contracts 25 

14. Resolution Approving the Art 
Commission's Purchase of 
Sculpture by Manuel Neri at 

a Cost of $60,000 25 

15. Request for Approval of Travel/ 
Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 25 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 25 

K. CLOSED SESSION: 25 

L. ADJOURNMENT: 26 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

September 16, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 
Don Richards Stephens 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES; 

The minutes of the regular meeting of August 19, 1986 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

NO. 86-0200 



D. SPECIAL ITEM: 

1 . Election of Officers 

Commissioner Tsougarakis nominated Commissioner Bernstein for 
President. Commissioner Goosby seconded the motion. 

Commissioner Goosby nominated Commissioner Fleishell for Vice 
President. Commissioner Stephens seconded the motion. 

Commissioners Bernstein and Fleishell were unanimously elected 
President and Vice President, respectively. 

No. 86-0201 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 3 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Airport Police - Board of Supervisor's Memorandum of Understanding 

Report on latest proposal for the 
re-negotiation of the Memorandum of 
Understanding between the City and 
County of San Francisco and the 
Airport Police Officers Association. 

Mr. Turpen, Airport Director, explained that although these matters 
are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors, the 
Airport did not have the opportunity to offer any input from either a 
management perspective or a Commission perspective. He said that 
even though there was nothing in the document that concerned him it 
was a question of process and the fact that he believed the 
Commission should be able to offer its views to the Board as part of 
the negotiations. 

Commissioner Goosby wondered why the Board did not insist on 
departmental input in these situations. 

Mr. Turpen said that even though the Airport was involved at a lower 
level in the organization he felt that that level of involvement was 
inappropriate. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if the Board has taken action on this 
item. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they have not, however, various elements 
within it have been voted on by the Board. He said that the basic 
agreement was voted on in 1983 and there have been several minor 
changes to that agreement, two of which have already been committed 
to and voted on by the Board. He recommended looking to the future 
in this matter and accepting the document that is in place. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how long the contract would be in 
effect. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the proposal is for five years and the 
management counter proposal is for three years. He said that this is 
probably the only open issue. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if this had gone to the Board without 
Airport staff or the Commission being involved. 

Mr. Turpen explained that in 1983 Milt Mares, the City negotiator, 
met with him to discuss a potential Police MOU. He said that Mr. 
Mares was provided input at that time and that was the last time the 
Airport heard anything about it. He said that to his surprise the 
MOU crossed his desk about five weeks ago. He told the Commission 
that he had no involvement in the current MOU and was not aware that 
one had been in place since 1983. He explained that contributing to 
the confusion in this matter was the change-over in the Board's 
negotiator. The new City negotiator, Marie Blits, finding an 
existing MOU, simply worked from that MOU and any questions she had 
she put to Chief Driscoll. Mr. Turpen said that Chief Driscoll, 
being new, was unaware that this MOU had never been before the 
Commission or the Director and as a result, and in good faith, simply 
responded to the new issues that were on the table. He said that 
those issues were really very minor in the overall scheme of this 
document. 

Mr. Turpen said that since this is exclusively within the Board's 
jurisdiction he was not sure that the department has had as active 

Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 4 



a role as he thinks the Commission would want. He said that he has 
taken steps to ensure that in the future that active role Is 
protected for the Commission. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the Commission needed to take any 
action. 

Mr. Turpen responded no. 

Commissioner Bernstein concluded that whatever the Commission did In 
this regard would be of no consequence. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded that the 
Commission does not have the ability to approve the agreement but 
under the new procedure the Commission would have Input to the 
negotiator on management prerogatives that the Commission might want 
included or negotiated on behalf of the Commission. He said that 
ultimately it is the Board of Supervisors that has exclusive 
jurisdiction over the matters included in the MOU. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that having input with no authority 1s 
meaningless. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis argued that 1f the Commission voiced strong 
objections it would not get very far. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if an employee within a department is 
unhappy with the actions of the Director, the staff or the 
Commission, can that employee go directly to the Board of Supervisors, 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that they can on those specific Issues over 
which the Board has jurisdiction. There are also departmental MOUs, 
negotiated by the department and approved by the Commission, which 
address working conditions in the department. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked what happens If the two conflict. 

Mr. Garibaldi said that a resolution would be arrived at by City 
Attorney opinion or court litigation. 

Mr. Turpen said that 1t is Important that the process that he wishes 
to put In place avoids similar situations in the future. It will 
allow the Commission the opportunity to express Its views early on in 
the process and, by resolution, make those views known to the Board 
of Supervisors. He felt that that would, in great measure, satisfy 
the Commission's concerns. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the Board 1s of the opinion that the 
Airport and the Commission had Input. He said he did not .understand 
why we don't have direct input with the Board of Supervisors. He 
felt that if there are any qualms about any part of this agreement 
the Commission should not let it go by. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission certainly Is free to contact the 
Board if 1t wants. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that since there are no serious objections 
to the agreement the Commission should not belabor the point. The 
Commission will have the opportunity to be involved next time. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that the Airport was consulted 
through the Chief of Police, however, the Chief operated under the 
assumption that there was an existing MOU which predated him. The 
changes in this MOU were insignificant compared to the prior MOU. He 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 5 



said that the Chief worked with Ms. Bllts, the City negotiator 
charged by the Board to negotiate these issues. Mr. Turpen defended 
the Chief and said that his actions were very reasonable under the 
circumstances. He said that the Chief was unaware that the first MOU 
had never come before the Commission or Airport staff for final 
review and approval . 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that there was obviously a gap 1n 
communication and staff has taken action to close that gap. She said 
that the changes In the current MOU that are being negotiated are 
very minor and there is no Issue. 

Commissioner Bernstein argued that there 1s an Issue. He said that 
one division went around the Commission to the Board of Supervisors. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the Commission has no choice about 
that. 

Mr. Turpen said that under the City rules there is no obligation to 
go through the department. The obligation is to negotiate an MOU 
with the Board as a labor entity. 

Mr. Turpen explained that he brought this before the Commission to 
make the members and staff aware of what is happening and to adivse 
the Commission that there is now a mechanism in place which will 
allow Input from staff and the Commission in the future. He said 
that there is not a lot that can be done right now and that we would 
not necessarily gain anything by trying. He said that a lot of 
energy would be expended with very little reward. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that this should be protested. 

Commissioner Goosby suggested that a letter could be sent endorsing 
what the Director is attempting to set up. 

Commissioner Bernstein agreed. 

Mr. Turpen said he would send a letter to Ms. Bllts, with a copy to 
the Clerk of the Board, confirming this arrangement. 



3. Report on Electronic Information Services 

Report on the pre-bld conference for 
the Electronic Information Services 
Lease and recommendations for future 
Commission action. 

Mr. Turpen said that out of 16 companies who were sent pre-bid 
packages on the Electronic Information Services bid, two companies 
showed up at the conference and only one of the two, the existing 
provider, Is capable of providing the service that we want. He 
recommended declaring the trial period over and allowing Telegulde to 
remain In operation on a month-to-month permit on the condition that 
they continue to develop a "You Are Here" page for the electronic 
Information display, explaining that Teleguide's current default page 
says "Telegulde". Staff wants It to display a "You-Are-Here" map of 
that portion of the terminal to supplement the existing "You Are 
Here" system at the Airport. He said that staff has discussed this 
with the Telegulde people and were told that It is possible. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how many prospective bidders were reached 
by telephone. 

Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 6 



Mr. Turpen responded five or six. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked for an reason behind the lack of 
revenue generation. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, 
responded that it is not Teleguide's lack of revenue, it Is the cost 
versus the revenue that they are unwilling to share with the 
Airport. She said that as for the general lack of Interest, this 
field has gone through a cycle where there was a lot of enthusiasm 
for the technology three or four years ago but the results have been 
disappointing. She said that the technology has Improved but the 
revenue generating marketability of 1t has not proven itself. She 
said it is something people Hke to use but companies are having 
trouble finding a way for people to pay for the service. 

Ms. Gittens explained that they are getting the advertising revenue 
but it was hoped that these systems would generate point of sale 
purchases. The idea was that the user would see a display and order 
it, thus generating revenue for the company. She said that that Is 
not the Teleguide system the Airport has but that was the basis for 
this technology. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis concluded that they are then barely able to 
pay for the cost. 

Ms. Gittens said that that is what they are saying. 

Mr. Turpen said that at the next meeting staff will present a 
resolution to the Commission approving the permit. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no Items initiated by Commissioners 



PENDING LEGISLATION: 

4. Report on Status of Selected State Legislation 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Turpen if there has been any further 
explanation from our Sacramento lobbyist regarding missing some bills, 

Mr. Turpen said no. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked If a copy of the letter was sent to 
the Mayor. 

Commissioners Goosby and Tsougarakis felt that it should be sent to 
her. 

Mr. Turpen explained that because of the tone of the letter he wanted 
to first approach the Commission before further distribution was made. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said it was okay with her. 

Commissioner Flelshell said that when he was on vacation he 

Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 7 



discovered a critical bill and called Dennis Bouey about 1t. 

Mr. Turpen said he will transmit the memo to the Mayor with the 
Commission's approval. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

The following is a verbatim transcript of Item #5. No action was taken. 

5. Provision of Free Luggage Carts to Passengers in Customs 

This Item includes two resolutions: 

1) Resolution exercising the 
Commission option to require Smarte 
Carte Inc. to provide free carts 1n 
Customs 

2) Resolution approving a supple- 
mental appropriation request to cover 
the City's cost for reimbursement to 
Smarte Carte for the free carts. 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: I support, as a good Commissioner, support 
the Mayor's desires so I move the staff recommendation with the 
proviso that we follow with our previous decision to call on he Mayor 
on this Issue as a Commission, or a couple of our members. And, I 
move 1t. 



Commissioner Goosby: Well, I formalize what she just stated but I 
would formalize It In language that "...provided a meeting is held 
with the Mayor by a two-person committee consisting of Fl el shell and 
Tsougarakls, to review with her the reasons for the previous action 
of the Commission, or inaction, and the Implication of the Airline 
Affairs Committee letter to us as of last week." The Implications of 
that letter. What's the name of that organization? 



Lou Turpen: The San Francisco Airline Airport Affairs Committee. 



Commissioner Goosby: That Committee's letter. To review the 
Implications and the Impact and so forth. Then, dependent upon that 
conversation and meeting, then we approve it. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Before we proceed, Mr. Chamberlin is here 
from Delta Airlines and perhaps he would like to say something. Jim. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls: We do have a motion and a second on the 
floor. 



Mr. Chamberlin: Mr. Bernstein, members of the Airports Commissions, 
thank you for the opportunity to be heard on this. I'm James A. 
Chamberlin, I'm a regional manager of properties for Delta Airlines 
and I'm speaking today also for Qantas, US Air, PSA, American and 
Branlff, with their specific approval, not necessarily my comments 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 8 



but In my opposition to the resolution that's before you. 



We're opposed to this for a number of reasons, that change Is now 
available In the International area which had been a problem In years 
past and also the provider of the carts has arranged to have a free 
cart for anybody who is unable to pay, at least that's my understand- 
ing of that. Carts taken out of this area will be a problem to 
retrieve. They'll either be done so at your cost or ours In some 
manner. We don't know exactly how It would work but they might be 
reused which will then take the revenue out of the concession we have 
today. 

We had mentioned to you last year that the provision of free carts 1n 
the International area will lead Immediately to a demand for them 
throughout the Airport and if the numbers that we've seen, somewhere 
around $750,000, are right for carts 1n the International area I 
shudder to think what it will be if 1t was throughout the Airport. We 
don't know of any complaints from passengers for free carts or 
complaints that they are not free carts. There is not a domestic 
airport, not an airport in the United States that we know of that has 
free carts and I just read an article yesterday In USA Today that 
rated airports on the good side and the bad side. Seven out of the 
first eight on the good side where International airports, none of 
them with free carts. And, last but not least, the airline community 
is unanimous in their opposition to this proposal, including the 
international carriers. Thank you very much. 



Commissioner Stephens: Is your opposition based on economic? 

Mr. Chamberlln: Partly so, yes sir. 

Commissioner Stephens: Is 1t anything beyond the fact that this 
might cost the Airport more which would lessen its revenue base? I'm 
a fairly new Commissioner so maybe I missed it. I can't understand 
why all those great big airlines are against free carts. 

Mr. Chamberlln: Well, It won't put us in the black, Mr. Stephens, 
but It might help. But to give you a direct answer, there are two 
reasons, one, it will take revenues out of the Airport and it will 
cost something to provide the free carts. So we get hit on the 
expense side and lack of revenue on the other side. 



Commissioner Goosby: Which, eventually you figure will effect your 
landing fees or rent or something else. 

Mr. Chamberlin: Yes sir, 1t would, Dr. Goosby. We have looked at 
this and I guess two out of the last three years... in any event we've 
been through this a number of times and we've felt that the matter 
had been resolved and that we had made the point, both from a stand- 
point of cost, loss of revenue and the problem of If the carts are 
left without a recovery charge or recovery reward that somebody Is 
going to have to pick them up and they won't be picked up necessarily 
the minute they are left, so we'll have to move them out of our way 
or out of our customers way so It does have a physical problem as 
wel 1 as a financial one. 



Minutes, September 16, 1986. Page 9 



Commissioner Stephens: Maybe I've missed something here. My under- 
standing of what It Is that we're talking about now Is something that 
will cost the City $500,000 to provide the free carts. Is that It? 
Other than that the cart system won't change. 



Mr. Turpen: That is. 

Commissioner Stephens: In other words, what would otherwise. . .we 
estimated that the useage of these carts would be 470,000 carts 
between now and June and we're going to pay, whoever, Smarte Carte or 
whoever it is, $1.00 a cart instead of the passenger paying. That's 
the only change. 

Mr. Turpen: We will pay the passenger's $1.00, that is correct. 



Commissioner Stephens: We're talking about a difference 1n the 
overall size of the Airport and our revenues for the year of $500,000. 

Mr. Turpen: First thing, the revenue to the Airport will remain the 
same or, 1n fact, Increase because more carts actually will be rented 
under the free cart system, if you will, then were under the pay cart 
system. So Airport revenues, and how much do we derive from Smarte 
Carte in a year, about $90,000 a year is the Airport Income from a 
cart operation. We expect that to remain the same and possibly 
Increase slightly. 



Commissioner Stephens: But that's our own money In this case because 
we're giving them $500,000 and they're giving us $90,000 back. 



Mr. Turpen: That's right. So we would net out of the $500,000, 
which 1s on the expense side, about 7-1 /2£ on the dollar or about 
7-1/2 percent on the expense side is what we would net back to us 
based on our 10 percent of concession revenue fee that we charge 
them. So, the bottom line is I guess we'd be talking roughly five to 
10 percent off the $470,000 figure as what the real expense outflow 
would be for this program. 



Mr. Chamberlin: Maybe I missed something in this but the $500,000 
that you would pay Smarte Carte for the use of International 
passengers, that would come out of your operating budget? 



Ms. Glttens: Yes. 

Mr. Chamberlin: So then It Is a cost back to the airlines 

Mr. Turpen: Correct. 

Mr. Chamberlin: ...in a rental... 



Commissioner Goosby: It's $500,000 for nine months, it's closer to 
$l-m1llion for a full year. 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 10 



Mr. Turpen: I'd have to think, about what the cart. . .$750,000 for a 
year possibly. 



Commissioner Stephens: $750,000 less the $90,000 we get back so say 

$650,000. 



Mr. Turpen: Well, let me explain how this works. We are paying 
Smarte Carte $1.00 for the cart. Actually, what we're doing 1s 
paying Smarte Carte 750 and we're throwing 1na 250 reward which Is 
going to go back to the passenger or whoever returns the cart so 
Smarte Carte Is getting 750. There obligation to the Airports 
Commission Is to pay 10 percent of gross or 7-1/20 on that 750 to 
us. So we get 7-1/20 a cart, whatever the numbers are so just adjust 
by 7-1/2 percent. 



Commissioner Stephens: So then there Is a retrieval mechanism. You 
were addressing yourself to retrieval problems. 



Mr. Chamberlln: I was not aware of that but it brings up another 
point Mr. Stephens, that is you're giving a passenger a free cart, In 
fact, your 're paying him 250 to use the cart because that 250 comes 
back from somebody out there. It doesn't seem to be a very efficient 
operation to me. 



Mr. Turpen: I think, for Commissioner Stephens benefit, we wrestled 
with all kinds of wonderful systems of free carts at the Airport. We 
talked about changing the cart design and putting different carts in 
customs and then winding up with two cart systems at the Airport. 
What we thought and what we tested a year ago was providing $1.00 for 
a cart, maintaining a fully compatible and Integrated cart system at 
the Airport, providing a cart system which would allow people to take 
the cart out of customs to the garage, if that's where their car was, 
to the curbside. Many airports, especially certain airports with 
free carts 1n customs. New York most notably, will not allow you to 
take that cart out to the curbside or over to the garage or anywhere 
else and we felt It was more of a service. We didn't see It as a 
service to allow somebody to use a cart for 40 feet and then have 
them lug their bags another 70, 80 or 200 feet. 



Commissioner Stephens: What were you proposing now? How far can 
they take their cart? Past customs? 



Mr. Turpen: They can take the cart anywhere they want. They can 
load It up at the carousel and they can take it anywhere on San 
Francisco International Airport. And the retrieval mechanism. In 
looking at it the last time around, we felt frankly that it was 
cheaper to offer the 250 as opposed to hiring people and running 
around and trying to retrieve the carts, it was more economical. 
Operationally we felt 1t was the best solution, economically we felt 
It was the least expensive of a number of them. 



Commissioner Goosby: They're not going to bring it back for 250. 
Commissioner Stephens: That's my feeling. 

Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 11 



Mr. Turpen: But somebody will return the carts not to customs.. 



Commissioner Goosby: The kids that we're trying to kick off the 
Airport. 



Mr. Turpen: No, someone will return the carts and then what happens 
Is the carts are 1n dispensers and it's easier to retrieve them. One 
of the big problems Smarte Carte had, and they can speak to this far 
better than I can, 1s keeping enough carts In the customs area 
because of the high volume usage. We had to retrieve carts from all 
over the Airport and get them back Into customs on a much more 
frequent basis than under this program because the useage 1s 25 to 50 
percent higher. 



Commissioner Goosby: Smarte Carte now retrieves them; that's part of 
their responsibility. And they have a responsibility to retrieve 
these free carts for $1.00. 



Mr. Turpen: They have a responsibility to maintain sufficient carts 
1n the customs arrival area to meet the demand and they have done 
that. 



Commissioner Goosby: And to retrieve those that are scattered out on 
the Airport. If they do retrieve the carts and return them I would 
Imagine. . .there 1s a certain benefit for them retrieving doesn't find 
its way Into the passengers hand then. 



Commissioner Stephens: Also, 1f we had enact this and we find out 
Its cumbersome to allow the people to take It all the way through 
customs and all the way out to the curb or garage there's nothing In 
what we're doing that prevents us from changing that, right. 



Mr. Turpen: It doesn't, but I will assure you, Commissioner, that 
that has not been a problem. Taking the carts anywhere on the 
Airport has not been a problem, as a matter of fact that's been a 
very great asset because we avoid a bottleneck at one place when you 
cause people to give up the carts. 



Mr. Chamberlln: I have a couple of questions. Lou, I was not aware 
that New York had free carts. I thought... 



Mr. Turpen: In customs only. You can't get them beyond customs so 
what you have to do 1s cough them up when you get to the door. Like 
the old Honolulu system. Remember you had to give them up? 



Mr. Chamberlln: But they've done away with that because of problems 
with It and cost. We are very much opposed to this and as I pointed 
out, and I think we did last year, that we're not hearing from our 
customers. . .I'm not an International carrier here... but we're not 
hearing from our customers that they have a problem with the present 
system so we're somewhat at a loss to understand why It keeps coming 
back before you. 



Minutes, September 16, 1986. Page 12 



Commissioner Goosby: The Mayor requested it, to be honest. 



Mr. Chamberlin: It's a good reason but It doesn't mean necessarily 
that that ought to be done. 



Commissioner Goosby: I think that In view of the letter that Van 
Wert wrote... I don't know whether he's going to address the legal 
implications and Garibaldi, whether he has any comments on that, but 
I'm very anxious that that be discussed with the Mayor before this is 
fully implemented and we add it to that amendment. 

Mr. Chamberlain: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

Mr. Turpen: Thanks Jim. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Paul Van Wert, United Airlines. 

Mr. Van Wert: Congratulations on your reelection, Mr. President. 

You've seen my letter. You've heard from Mr. Chamberlin. I hope 
you've seen my letter. You've heard from Mr. Chamberlin so I'll try 
and touch on some other aspects of this that are bothering the 
airline community. I'm not only hear speaking on behalf of United 
Airlines but I'm speaking in my capacity of chairman of the Airline 
Airport Affairs Committee. 

We see this as a very small problem. Every airport 1n the U.S. has 
studied this to death and they've all gone to pay carts. What have 
you got? A million and a half people entering as International 
arriving passengers here every year. Ninety-nine percent of them are 
not concerned about this Issue. Half of them don't want a cart or 
don't need a cart. Ninety-eight percent of the other ones know this 
is standard operating procedure. They have their American money, 
they get the cart so we're talking about a very small problem 
concerning a very few people and we think that the solution that 1s 
proposed to deal with the small ness of this problem Is way too 
costly. You're killing an ant with an elephant, as the old saying 
goes, and if the City Is bent on having free carts I think some more 
thought ought to go into possibly how this could be arranged. Over 
the next few years, we're talking under the system that's being 
proposed we're talking about $750,000 on a full years budget. I'd 
like to point out for Mr. Stephens benefit, if he would allow me to, 
that that $750,000 Mr. Stephens, under the Airport's accounting 
system will paid for entirely by the al riles, as I pointed out in my 
letter. That $750,000 will go Into the calculation of our rental and 
we will pay the entire amount of money. And, as you start looking 
ahead next year and the year beyond that you're talking about 
millions of dollars to solve a very small problem. 

The other thing is the curoslty about the disservice to the 
passenger. The passenger gets off the airplane, and now that United 
has acquired Pan Am I am doing some international travel Ing. . .the 
Pacific division of Pan Am I should say. ..so I've had a little 
personal experience with what It's like to deplane Internationally. 
You get off the airplane and money Is required for quite a few things 
when you get off the airplane. You might need It for a cart, you may 
not. You have porters to tip. At San Francisco Airport as soon as 
you leave customs you're Involved with tipping a porter, you're 

Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 13 



Involved with paying for ground tranpsortatlon, you're Involved with 
paying for parking. The passenger expects to pay for goods and 
services that he uses when he arrives at the Airport. The logic of 
segregating this particular service as something that ought to be 
offered free to the passenger doesn't really add up, I don't think, 
when you go through the experience of being an International arriving 
passenger. I guess it's appreared in the press and the Mayor wrote 
us a letter last year about the City's Image. I don't know how the 
City's image has Improved by a give away program. There's nothing 
charming, there's nothing sophisticated, there's nothing uptown about 
giving somebody something. I think people expect to pay for this and 
are glad to do so. If we are going to have free carts I think the 
airlines, if we are going to consider free carts, I know there may be 
some circumstances under which they could be provided on a limited 
basis or otherwise in the international facility and we feel that 
this issue needs more exploration. We used to have free carts 1n the 
International Terminal here at the Airport. It was a condition of 
the concessionaire contract that they be provided. Somehow that got 
lost in the shuffle. Possibly a renegotiation of the concessionaires 
contract could provide some sort of free cart service in the 
international area. 

Another solution that has occurred to us Is if we're dealing with a 
very small number of people, which we believe we are, that possibly 
there's another way to approach the problem. I'm just calling to 
call it, for a lack of a better name, a "Welcome to San Francisco 
Desk" in the international facility where a deplaning passenger can 
go for information, an Airport brochure, put right adjacent to or on 
the Smarte Carte dispenser that if you need assistance In getting a 
cart go to the City Welcome Reception Desk, which will be in a highly 
visible area. I would much rather see the City, the airlines would 
much rather see the City do something productive rather. . .find a 
pruductive solution by doing something like a Welcome Desk... the 
staffing cost of a Welcome Desk. . .$50,000 - $75,000 a year. . .peanuts 
compared to this solution and It might be able to provide... 
(Interrupted by Commissioner Goosby) 



Commissioner Goosby: ...Inaudible remarks. 



Mr. Van Wert: Yes, I understand that but I think the City and 
possibly the Mayor, If she's concerned about this Issue, could take 
more direct credit for seeing that those free carts are provided to 
the exceptions. 



Thank you very much 



Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Merton of Japan Airlines wanted to be 
recognized but did not want to say anything. Is that correct? 



Mr. Merton: That's correct. I just want to reiterate what Paul and 
Jim have said. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Glen Smith of Smarte Carte. 



Mr. Smith: Good morning Commissioners. I'll make my remarks very 
brief. I would to underscore the number of carts that would rented. 
During the course of a year we expect it would be approximately 
720,000 In the customs area in the period of one year with the free 



Minutes, September 16. 1986, Page 14 



service. If I might just move over to a couple of other points that 
have been mentioned here. I recently had a meeting with Mr. Bob 
Aronson of the Port Authority of New Jersey and New York.. As a 
matter of fact the meeting was last week and he reiterated the desire 
of all the people 1n the Port Authority to have rental carts at JFK 
at the earliest possible time. We are In the process of negotiating 
that matter right now and In his words we expect to have that matter 
resolved by the middle of 1987. 

I would like to make one other point and that Is during the month of 
August I spent three weeks traveling to 14 or 15 airports and saw a 
number of rental cart services In operation, In fact four of them, 
and 1n a discussion with Mr. David Cummlng of Heathrow In London, 
once they become a private organization In the Spring of 1987, expect 
to review what they call trolley service over there for Its extensive 
costs. They have done some audits and find that the serlvce run 
Internally to be very expensive and feel that they will move In the 
direction of a rental trolley service In the future. 

Thank you very much. Are there any questions? 
Commissioner Bernstein: Anything? Thank you. 



Commissioner Goosby: I just wondered. . .unti 1 we have that conversa- 
tion with the Mayor I'm a little reluctant to vote for this. I know 
I amended It to include. . .It' s logical to have the meeting first with 
her and then bring It back to the Commission to vote on 1t. If the 
Commission can let that stay before them and then have the meeting 
and then at the next meeting vote on It 1t would make more sense to 
me. I would feel more comfortable voting for It. At this point, 
pending that meeting, because I think we're going 1n the face of 
custom, we're going In the face of logic, we're going 1n the face of 
our own history and I just feel that I can't vote for this until I've 
had this meeting to try to convince the powers that be that we are 
going 1n the face of all of this. If I can't convince the powers 
that be then I might go ahead and vote for 1t. I have difficulty... 
I'm going to vote no on It or request that the Commission keep 1t 
before us. 



Commissioner Stephens: It seems to me we've talked about It several 
times. It's going to take quite a bit of time to Implement It and 
get 1t approved through the Board of Supervisors. If something came 
up that would make us change our minds as we went along I don't see 
any reason that we couldn't reverse ourselves. I'd just as soon, 
since we've talked about, I'd just as soon see us act on It. 



Commissioner Flelshell: I'm not sure what we're acting on. Are we 
going to reverse our earlier decision to disapprove the design of the 
cart? 



Commissioner Stephens: No. 

Mr. Turpen: That's a separate Issue. 



Commissioner Stephens: All we're talking about Is the free cart 
Issue. 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 15 



Commissioner Flelshell: My only comment about the free cart Issue... 
the way It's put together by staff It's about five times more costly 
than If we did It ourselves. You can take 300 carts at $100 a piece 
is $30,000. You can hire four people, three shifts a day, eight 
people, It's a lot less money than this. I think there are better 
ways of doing 1t. I have advocated free carts since the day I got on 
this Commission. When I got on this Commission there were no carts 
1n customs. I'm In favor of It but I find It hard to swallow this 
kind money to do a simple job. There's got to be a better way. We 
originally thought we had solved 1t when the Commission had voted on 
the Smarte Carte contract It was to provide carts in an amount to be 
determined by the Director. The contract was written up for 30 
carts. This Commission has never voted on that. I suggested some 
years ago we file a suit tp reform that contract to conform with what 
the Commission, In fact, voted on but nothing ever happened so here 
we are faced with the same problems again. We'd have had the carts 
for free. The way to handle this, of course, Is to put out a new bid 
and that's why I'd like to see us move ahead to cancel the existing 
contract, put out a new bid requiring the provision of free carts In 
the customs area and obviously somebody's going to be for It but at 
least. . .(changed the tape) 

...so it topples over 1f you overload It. Well, you can overload It 
very easiy and that's why I've fought for an L-shaped cart and we 
voted on it three times and we keep coming back to it again. 



Mr. Turpen: I think, for the Commission's benefit, there are two 
issues working here. First of all, the mayor had made a request If 
the Commission elects not to put this Item or to move forward with 
this item, 1t would be my recommendation, having talked to her when I 
returned from my vacation, that the Commission move very quickly to 
sit down with her and discuss the matter. It was her expectation 
that this matter would be acted on early on, 1f you will, In August 
and when I cam back she asked me what the status was and I shared 
with her the status. It Is her expectation the Commission would move 
today, In fairness the Commission is obviously free to act In which- 
ever direction It wants, I would only suggest that the Mayor be 
advised immediately and consulted on this. Number two, if we get 
Into a cart design change with respect to provision of free carts in 
customs I don't expect that if the Commission decides to go forward 
with free carts, I don't expect that that will be accomplished In the 
near future. If we get Into a rebid, 1f we get into a renegotiation, 
or whatever, I think that's going to take time and will further delay 
this action. I will call the Commission's attention to the fact that 
the environment was not replete with bidders when we last bid this 
contract in 1985. ..I believe it was 1985 for five years. ..I believe 
...how many people bid on 1t? 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: One. 

Mr. Turpen: One. As I said, we are 1n a position, candidly, where 
If we want to move ahead with the free carts we are confined to a 
certain course of action. If we are not prepared to move ahead with 
that right now then obviously there's time for the Commission to do 
some other things. And those are my only comments on the matter. I 
would be happy to do whatever the Commission would like me to do. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls: I move the question. 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 16 



Commissioner Bernstein: Would you like to comment on It? 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: No, I'm satisfied. I believe In the 
Golden Rule... He who has the gold rules. And the Mayor's basically 
our boss and she said "I want free carts" so whether or not... but I 
do think It's necessary for us to sit down face to face, which we 
have not done. . .(Interrupted by Commissioner Goosby) 



Commissioner Goosby: That's In the motion 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: ...and I agree with Commissioner Stephens 
that It takes a long time for the process to get through everybody so 
we do have time to talk to the Mayor and reverse our decision in case 
we choose to. But I am stating here and now that I am voting for It 
because I think the Mayor has always Indicated that she wants the 
City to stand together on her policies and that's what we're doing 
here. 



Commissioner Flelshell: I certainly support free carts but 1 don't 
want to vote for something that ties us Into doing business with 
Smarte Cartes and that's what this resolution does. There may be a 
better way to do It. 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: Well, they're the contractor of record and 
1n my opinion we don't have any choice at the moment. 

Commissioner Flelshell: We really do. You get on the phone and 
order 300 carts and do a work order an be in business within two 
weeks. 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: We're an airport not a concession. 



Commissioner Flelshell: We're also an art gallery. We're a number 
of things. 



Mr. Turpen: Well, let me say a couple of things about that. First 
of all I don't now, contractually, whether or not Smarte Carte has 
the rights to the international area. I believe their contract gives 
them those rights. 



Commissioner Flelshell: Can I stop you there, Lou. We went Into 
this eight months ago. Morrison and Foerster said that they do not 
have the right to It. 



Mr. Turpen: All I can tell you Commissioner Is that they are 
operating under a contract and you'd have to talk to the City 
Attorney about the legal aspects of It. I am not qualified to 
comment on those. We are presently under a contract. The contract 
does Include the customs areas but we are not talking about 300 
carts. Their minimum requirement is 400 carts and If we go to free 
carts we'll require even more so we are going to have to buy 
substantially more than 300 carts. 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 17 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: Then we have a capital outlay in addition, 



Commissioner Flelshell: Well, I don't want to get into that but we 
have a resolution where you're asking us to vote a deal with Smarte 
Carte when you are right now in a period where they are in breach of 
their contract. 



Mr. Turpen: For a period of five years we have come up with 
thousands of different alternatives of how to deal with carts, 
Commissioner, and we've gone through the buy our own carts, staff 1t 
up ourselves, have our people collect, and the decision was made that 
we really didn't want to go in-house with this. That's why we went 
this way. We went through a test program a year ago with respect to 
paying Smarte Carte, or in other words giving each passenger, 
theoretically $1.00 for a cart so they would be free to the 
passengers. It's my recommendation that financially and operation- 
ally this is the cleanest and best way to go. The minute you 
introduce a dual cart system at the Airport you face the spectre of 
trying to keep those cart systems separated, of trying to retrieve 
the carts. If you start confining to customs you defeat the whole 
purpose of what you're trying to accomplish because the last you want 
to accomplish is to have people give up the cart 40 feet after they 
get it. So, all in all, I think to introduce that concept simply 
confuses the issues. The Issue before us, as I see It, is whether or 
not we will pursue this as quickly as possible. If the Commission's 
decision, and It's fine 1f the Commission's is no, we don't want to 
pursue It in this matter, we want to go back to the drawing board and 
come up with a better way to do it, we're happy to do that, but I'm 
not sure that's exactly where we are at this point. 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: I'd like to point out too that 1f we were 

to get into the business ourselves we could not do it unless we took 

over the whole Airport. We could not just do it 1n customs, 1t would 
be Impossible and extremely costly. 

Commissioner Flelshell: I hate to see ourselves commit to deal with 
a company that presently Is in breach of their agreement with us by 
having not provided an L-shaped cart. It doesn't make sense to tie 
ourselve to a company that may well not have a contract with the 
Airport. It's unbelievable. 



Mr. Turpen: Can the City Attorney be helpful? 



Commissioner Goosby: What's the parliamentary procedure of holding a 
resolution in abeyance pending a meeting with the Mayor? 



Mr. Garibaldi: By motion of the Commission you just vote to keep It 
on the calendar and put it on for the next meeting. Put it over to 
the next meeting. 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: I would say let's go for It with the 
proviso that we meet with the Mayor. 



Commissioner Flelshell: Well, I'd be happy if we just amend It by 
adding a further resolution clause "...or in such other manner as 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 18 



shall be determined by the Director". That is not commltlng 
ourselves just to deal with Smarte Carte because there may well be 
other options. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Are there any objections to that? 



Mr. Turpen: Yes sir. This is a minor point, I agree with Mr. Van 

Wert, but 1t has become a major issue. Whatever system we put 1n I 

would want the Commission to clearly understand and to frankly to 

direct staff to put In. I simply, as a Director, want to make that 
decision to depart from it. 



Commissioner Goosby: Well, his motion would do that. In other words 
he directs you to look at other possibilities and come back to the 
Commission. 



Commissioner Stephens: In other words you don't have to be left to 
the decision on your own. I'd go along with that. 



Commissioner Fleishell: Sure. 



Commissioner Stephens: Commissioner Tsougarakls, would you accept 
that amendment. 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: Sure. 

Commissioner Stephens: Sure. 

Mr. Turpen: I don't understand what It Is. 



Commissioner Stephens: To use such other method as may be determined 
by staff and approved by the Commission. It leaves an out if we 
decide not to deal with Smarte Carte if we're not bound to them. If 
we're bound to them and we have a contract then obviously we're bound 
to them. I think Commissioner Fleishell 's feeling, and I agree, Is 
that we don't want to do something today thinking that all we're 
doing is getting free carts and finding out that that establishes 
that we have a valid contract with Smarte Carte when we may, 1n fact, 
not have. Is that it? 



Commissioner Fleishell: Exactly. And then your next Item on the 
agenda does exactly that. If you approve their design you waive the 
breach. 



Mr. Turpen: As I said, it's a legal Issue and I'm neutral on It 



Commissioner Goosby: The motion has been amended once with this 
proviso about the meeting with the Mayor; two, with Mr. Fleishell 's 
thing that the staff come and look at other possibilities. And, I 
would just like to offer one other one, If the Commission would 
agree, that this meeting with the Mayor be held before the next 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 19 



Commission meeting so that it is not next December by the time we get 
this meeting. Before the next Commission meeting this meeting with 
the Mayor by the two noted Individuals be held and then I'll vote for 
it. And I hope the airlines approach the proper office, too, as they 
approached us about their concerns. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Can we amend that, Don and vote on 1t now? 
Mr. Garibaldi : Sure. 
The vote was unanimous. 



Commissioner Tsougarakls: I want to ask a question. Is the $500,000 
resolution involved in this or is that separate. 



Mr. Turpen: I don't know. There's a little confusion on my part. 
Counselor. Do we go forward with the... 



Mr. Garibaldi: No, they adopted this resolution. 

Mr. Turpen: All right. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls: Do we still have to vote on the $500,000? 



Mr. Garibaldi: Not until you have your meeting with the Mayor and 
decide to do this. 



The following Item was put over. 

6. Smarte Carte Request for Reconsideration of Cart Design 

Commissioner Stephens said that some questions have come up about the 
ability to obtain Insurance. He asked that the item be put over to 
the next meeting. 

Commissioners Goosby and Bernstein agreed with Commissioner Stephens. 



The following Item was unanimously adopted. 

7. Adoption of Fiscal Year 1986/87 Rates and Charges 

No. 86-0203 Resolution authorizing the establish- 

ment of (1) terminal rental rates and 
(2) commercial and general aviation 
landing fee rates for Fiscal Year 
1985/86 and beyond. 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 20 



The following item was put over. 

8. Authorization to Bid: 

International Terminal and South Terminal Shoeshine Leases 

Resolution approving leasehold 
specifications an authorizing Director 
to receive bids for: 

1) International Terminal Shoeshine 
Lease 

2) South Terminal Shoeshine Lease 

Mr. Turpen said that paragraph two of his summary 1 n his September 8 
memo to the Commission Indicates that language has been incorporated 
In each lease that requires the Director's approval of all 
subcontracting, subleasing or employment agreements and he feels that 
will satisfy the Commission's prior concern. 

Commissioner Goosby asked If a performance bond was being required. 

Ms. Gittens responded that a performance bond was being required. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if 1t is customary for the performance bond 
to be about 50 percent of the anticipated annual rent. 

Ms. Gittens said It is. 

Commissioner Goosby said he was a member of an organization Involved 
with the Board of Supervisors and the Human Rights Commission to 
determine if these bid bonds and performance bonds can facilitate 
small /local /women businesses 1n the City. He asked Commissioner 
Bernstein if it is customary to require a performance bond from a 
subtenant in commercial operations. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that 1t is customary. He said that the 
performance bond for this concession is ridiculous. 

Mr. Turpen said that It can be lowered if the Commission wishes. 

Ms. Gittens commented that it was lowered last year after a similar 
discussion and told the Commission that the winning bidder defaulted. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the Baggage Storage concession that Is 
being terminated had a performance bond. 

Ms. Gittens said it did. She said that when the Commission reaches 
that item on the calendar, staff will recommend that the performance 
bond be returned to the Baggage Storage concessionaire. She said 
that he will forfeit the performance bond If the Commission does not 
agree with the staff recommendation. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Walter Caplan If he wished to 
address the Commission. 

Mr. Caplan, attorney for A Step Up, said that this Is the third time 
he has come before the Commission regarding the South Terminal 
Shoeshine lease. He said that his client has been shining shoes at 
the Airport for more than 10 years. His client bid once, 
unsuccessfully, on the North Terminal lease and the first time he bid 
on the South Terminal lease he was the number two bidder. At that 
time he raised Issues about the adequacy of the bid process and the 
Commission cancelled the process and put it out to bid again. He 
said that after the second bid process a year ago his client was the 
number two bidder again. He said he again approached the Commission 

Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 21 



and raised the Issue of the question as to whether or not the high 
bidder was a qualified, responsible bidder. 

Mr. Caplan said that all of the Information presented to the 
Commission and documents currently on file at the Airport pointed to 
the fact that Airport staff should have determined that the high 
bidder was not a qualified, responsible bidder. He said that the 
high bidder was delinquent in his payments to the Airport on other 
leases and was not providing the required services. He said that the 
Issue of whether or not he was qualified had nothing to do with the 
bid amount. 

Mr. Caplan said that Commissioner Goosby had asked a question about 
performance bonds and bid bonds. He said that the Airports 
Commission, through a policy devised by staff, requires a performance 
bond of half of the bid. In order to bid on this lease staff Is 
recommending a bid bond of $12,500 as opposed to the $5,000 that was 
required in the two previous bid procedures. He said that this 1s 
supposed to be an opportunity for small businesses to provide a 
service at the Airport. He felt that requiring $12,500 merely to bid 
was an onorous requirement and since $5,000 was sufficient the first 
and second times 1t should be sufficient this time. He said that his 
client had to come up with $5,000 which was held by the Airport 
without interest. 

Commissioner Stephens asked Mr. Caplan If the performance bond was 
acceptable. 

Mr. Caplan responded that It was. He said that the other Issue Is 
that due to the failure of the first two bidders to perform, staff 
requested a provision that requires the operator to spend a minimum 
of 10 hours on-site 1n the personal management and operation of the 
business. He said he suggested at the pre-bld conference that since 
this 1s a service business 1t might be In the best Interest of the 
Commission to require the operator to actually provide the service 
himself for a minimum number of hours a week. 

Mr. Caplan said that four of the five people at the pre-b1d 

conference supported the $5,000 amount and there was discussion as to 

whether or not the service should be personally provided by the 
bidder. 

Commissioner Stephens said that Mr. Caplan's suggestions sounded 
reasonable and asked If there was any reason why they shouldn't be 
Included. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed. 

Mr. Garibaldi said there was no reason why they could not be 
Included. 

Ms. Gittens told the Commission that there 1s a requirement of 20 
hours of on-site presence of the owner In the subleases for the 
principal concession. She said that the Issue here Is that the 
Commission would be requiring the owner to shine shoes. She 
explained that staff Is recommending that the 10 hours could be In 
the operation or management of the facility. She argued that the 
owner of a sublease Is required to be on-site for 20 hours but Is not 
required to be a cashier during that time so she did not think 1t 
would be fair to require the shoeshlne operator to shine shoes for 10 
hours a week. She reminded the Commission that the South Terminal 
has three locations and supervision Is sometimes a problem. 

Commissioner Stephens said he wanted to avoid a situation where the 
Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 22 



operator of the concession has an office on Montgomery Street, 
collects rent from employees and then writes a check. He wanted the 
operator to actually run this small business. 

Ms. Gittens said that that is why the 10 hours is being required. 
She said the owner Is also being required to submit whatever employee 
documents there are, whether they are subcontracting documents or 
employment documents, to the Airport for review so that staff can 
determine what the relationship is. 

Commissioner Flei shell said that several months ago he raised the 
issue that a class of servants 1s being created at the Airport who 
have no protection under the law. He said that these people are not 
Independent contractors, they are employees. He felt that the 
Airport should require that the operator hire and not create phony 
independent contractor relationships. He said that the operator ends 
up avoiding the responsibilities of being an employer as well as 
avoiding paying withholding taxes. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if there were any liability Issues. 

Commissioner Stephens responded that there would be no liability 
issues for the Airport on withholding taxes but there might be for 
workmen's compensation. 

Mr. Caplan argued that this business, unlike most other small 
businesses at the Airport, provides a service and can best be 
accomplished by requiring that the operator be on the premises and 
personally provide that service for part of the time. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the amount was reduced to $5,000 and 10 
hours a week. 

Commissioner Flei shell added that they must be employees rather than 
independent contractors. 

Commissioner Goosby said that that would be looked into. He said he 
has talked to the shoeshlne operators over the years and he Is not so 
sure that that stipulation should be added without It first being 
discussed In a pre-bid conference. He said that the only way some of 
these people can make it Is to have those individuals shining shoes 
pay a commission. He said that that amendment would radically change 
the specifications and he felt that another pre-bid conference should 
be held to discuss this issue. 

Commissioner Stephens recommended reducing the amount to $5,000 and 
requiring the 10 hours a week and suggested that the bidding require- 
ments be set up in such a way that the Airport is not creating 
additional liability for Itself. He said he does not want It bid In 
such a way that the bidder 1s exposed to excess liability by having 
Independent contractors who aren't Independent contractors. 

Mr. Caplan asked 1f the operator would be required to provide the 
service for 10 hours. 

Commissioner Goosby responded that he would not. Whatever the 
operator wants to do Is his business as long as he Is on-site. 

Mr. Turpen suggested putting the Item over and staff will present the 
Commission with an amended resolution at the next Commission meeting, 
thus avoiding confusion. 

The Commission agreed. 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 23 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

9. Authorization to Bid: 

Barber/Beauty Salon Lease 

No. 86-0204 Resolution approving the lease 

specifications and authorizing the 
Director to Invite bids for the 
Barber/Beauty Salon Lease. 



10. Lease of Full Service Baggage Storage Concession/Termination of Lease 

No. 86-0205 Resolution terminating Lease of Full 

Service Baggage Storage Concession 
(Resolution No. 86-0076) Issued to 
Travel Central , Inc. 

Commissioner Goosby said staff Is requesting that the performance 
bond be returned to the concessionaire. 

Ms. Gittens said that was correct. She said staff checked with 
Insurance companies and with Keith Grand, the City's risk manager, on 
the difficulty of obtaining Insurance for such an operation and such 
an enterprise. She said that Mr. Fong is a small business enterprise 
and new to this business. She said that Keith Grand told her that he 
was not the least bit surprised that Insurance companies would not be 
willing to take this kind of risk for liability Insurance for baggage 
storage at an airport for a new, small business. She said Mr. Grand 
even made some calls himself. 



11. Lease of Cigarette Vending Machines in the International Terminal at 
San Francisco International Airport 

No. 86-0206 Authorization to receive bids for the 

Lease of Cigarette Vending Machines 1n 
the International Terminal Building at 
San Francisco International Airport. 



12. Award of Airport Contract No. 1639: 

Police Substation Offices, 2nd Floor, North Connector 

No. 86-0207 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1639 

to Angottl and Reilly/T.E. Joo, a 
joint venture, in the amount of 
$271,000. 

Four bids were received on August 13, 
1986 ranging from $271,000 to $328,000. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how many feet this Included. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, responded that the area is slightly over 3,300 square 
feet and will cost about $82.00 a square foot. He said that this Is 
not like other alterations as It Includes bullet proof glass, special 
cabinets for guns, and the construction of a jail cell. He felt that 
for what is being Included it Is a very fair quote. 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 24 



Commissioner Bernstein quoted Mr. Bouey the latest costs 1n new 
construction from the Bank of American at $40.00 a foot. 

Mr. Bouey took, the brochure and noted that the quote was for a 
$70,000 home in San Francisco. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

13. Type II Modifications for Two South Terminal Complex Construction 
Contracts 

Contract modification to provide 
additional work for unforeseen 
conditions, deficiencies In the plans 
and specifications, and design changes. 

No. 86-0208 Contract 1410ABCD - South Terminal 

Renovation - Phase I - $ 9,809.45 

No. 86-0209 Contract 1414AB - Boarding Area B - 

Renovation - $54,779.00 



14. Resolution Approving the Art Commission's Purchase of Sculpture by 
Manuel Nerl at a Cost of $60,000 

No. 86-0210 The purchase was approved by Airports 

Commission at its meeting on August 
19, 1986, as a Commissioner initiated 
Item. Formal adoption of resolution 
Is required to reconfirm action. 



15. Request for Approval of Travel /Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 86-0211 



* * * 

J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 

* * * 

K. CLOSED SESSION: 

There was no closed session. 



Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 25 



* * * 



L. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:20 AM. 



jOTtrrCaramatt'i 
Commission Secretary 




Minutes, September 16, 1986, Page 26 



/#4 

tJL 



SAN FRANCISCO 



AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




6 198/ 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PI.IRUC I.IBRAPV 



MINUTES 



SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 
SPECIAL MEETING 



Room 282 - City Hall 
City and County of San Francisco 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 







Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 










September 23, 1986 
Special Meeting 






CALENDAR 
SECTION 


AGENDA 
ITEM 


TITLE 


RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 


PAGE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 




2 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




2 



C. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



D. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. Provision of Free Luggage Carts 
to Passengers in Customs 

- Commission option to require 
Smarte Carte to provide free 



F. 



carts in Customs 


86-0212 


2-3 


- Supplemental Appropriation 
to cover the cost 


86-0213 


2-3 


Smarte Cart Request of Recon- 
sideration of Cart Design 


86-0214 


4-5 


ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 
CLOSED SESSION: 




5 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

September 23, 1986 
Special Meeting 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 8:10 
AM in Room 300 of the Department of Public Health, 101 Grove Street, San 
Francisco, CA. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougaraki s 

Absent: Don Richards Stephens 



C. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 

1. Provision of Free Luggage Carts to Passengers in Customs 

This Item includes two resolutions: 

NO. 86-0212 (1) Resolution exercising the 

Commission option to require 
Smarte Carte Inc. to provide free 
carts in Customs; 

No. 86-0213 (2) Resolution approving a supple- 

mental appropriation request to 
cover the City's cost for 
reimbursement to Smarte Carte for 
the free carts. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, September 23, 1986, Page 2 



Commissioner Goosby asked what amendments were made at the last 
Commission meeting. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, responded that one amendment 
required that a meeting be held between members of the Commission and 
the Mayor before the next regular Commission meeting. The second 
amendment required that other alternatives be looked at. 

Mr. Turpen said that the resolution before the Commission, which was 
considered at the last Commission meeting, directs staff to implement 
that portion of the current Smarte Carte contract which provides free 
carts in customs. The second resolution implements the supplemental 
process to ensure funds are available to support that program. 

Commissioner Goosby asked who is responsible for returning the carts 
to the di spensers. 

Mr. Turpen responded that last year a test program was run which 
essentially gave $1.00 to each international passenger to buy a 
cart. Out of that $1.00 Smarte Carte netted 750. Twenty-five cents 
of that $1.00 was retained as an incentive to return the cart. He 
explained that currently carts can be taken from customs to any 
location on the Airport. . .the garage, curbside or other terminals. 

Commissioner Goosby said it was his understanding that Smarte Carte 
had an obligation to retrieve carts to the various locations. 

Mr. Turpen said that Smarte Carte has an obligation to provide 400 
carts in customs at all times. 

Commissioner Goosby argued that if 1t is not Smarte Carte's responsi- 
bility then perhaps the Airport should not be trying to keep the 
school kids away from the Airport. He said that someone should be 
responsible for the retrieval of carts, whether it is Airport staff 
or Smarte Carte. 

Mr. Turpen said it is his opinion that it is the contractor's respon- 
sibility and the contractor offers 250 as an incentive to ensure the 
carts are returned. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airport General Counsel, agreed that it is the 
contractor's responsibility. 

Mr. Turpen said that based on Smarte Carte's decision to offer a 250 
reward Smarte Carte pays the Airport 10 percent, or 7-1/20 out of the 
remaining 750. In effect, Smarte Carte continues to receive 67-1/20. 
He said that when Smarte Carte employees return a cart the company 
keeps the quarter. 

Mr. Turpen explained that cart clutter is not a major problem. 
Skycaps and other persons at the Airport typically will return a cart 
to a dispenser for the 250 reward. Smarte Carte retrieves carts from 
those dispensers and brings them back to customs in order to maintain 
a supply of carts in that area. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he was going to vote In favor of the Item 
for two reasons: because he has fought for eight years to have free 
carts in customs; and, the Mayor wants free carts. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, September 23, 1986, Page 3 



The following item was adopted by a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Flei shell 
casting the dissenting vote. 

2. Smarte Carte Request for Reconsideration of Cart Design 

No. 86-0214 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission had requested an L-shaped design 
and Smarte Carte developed that design. When Smarte Carte presented 
the new design to their insurance company the company was reluctant 
to provide insurance. He said that Smarte Carte also developed 
another design, which is similar to but slightly larger than the 
current design, in an attempt to be responsive to the Airports 
Commission's desire for greater luggage carrying capacity. He said 
that Smarte Carte does not want to provide an L-shape cart because it 
is not insurable. Mr. Turpen said that the Commission must decide 
whether to accept a modified design with a slightly greater carrying 
capacity or to reject it and stay with the basic cart which Is 
currently being used at the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen said it is his understanding that Smarte Carte's insurance 
company is requiring them to install the modified cart on a trial 
basis at a smaller airport. 

Commissioner Flei shell asked what steps staff has taken to determine 
whether an L-shaped cart can be insured. 

Mr. Turpen responded that to his knowledge he did not believe that 
anyone on staff has made calls to Insurance companies to determine 
whether or not the L-shaped cart could be insured. 

Commissioner Flei shell argued that the City pays $20,000 a year to a 
risk manager for insurance advice. 

Mr. Turpen said that to his knowledge no one on staff has contacted 
him. He said that if the Commission would like to put this item over 
staff will be happy to talk to the risk manager about L-shaped carts. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis did not feel the item should be put over. 

Mr. Turpen said it was his understanding that Smarte Carte approached 
23 insurance companies in order to get insurance on their basic cart 
design and only one firm would insure that design. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how many claims there were against 
Smarte Carte. 

Mr. Gene Pastian, Smarte Carte, responded that there are two claims 
pending. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the Insurance companies were refusing 
to insure the type of cart or Smarte Carte itself. 

Mr. Pastlen responded that each insurance company had different 
reasons for not Insuring Smarte Carte and they were not necessarily 
al 1 cart related. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what the main reason was. 

Mr. Pastlen responded that he supposed the main reason was Smarte 
Carte's exposure to the general public. He said that the fact that 
Smarte Carte Interacts with the general public makes them a high 



Minutes, Special Meeting, September 23, 1986, Page 4 



The following Item was adopted by a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Flelshell 
casting the dissenting vote. 

2. Smarte Carte Request for Reconsideration of Cart Design 

No. 86-0214 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission had requested an L-shaped design 
and Smarte Carte developed that design. When Smarte Carte presented 
the new design to their Insurance company the company was reluctant 
to provide Insurance. He said that Smarte Carte also developed 
another design, which Is similar to but slightly larger than the 
current design, in an attempt to be responsive to the Airports 
Commission's desire for greater luggage carrying capacity. He said 
that Smarte Carte does not want to provide an L-shape cart because it 
is not Insurable. Mr. Turpen said that the Commission must decide 
whether to accept a modified design with a slightly greater carrying 
capacity or to reject it and stay with the basic cart which Is 
currently being used at the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen said it Is his understanding that Smarte Carte's Insurance 
company Is requiring them to Install the modified cart on a trial 
basis at a smaller airport. 

Commissioner Flelshell asked what steps staff has taken to determine 
whether an L-shaped cart can be insured. 

Mr. Turpen responded that to his knowledge he did not believe that 
anyone on staff has made calls to insurance companies to determine 
whether or not the L-shaped cart could be insured. 

Commissioner Flelshell argued that the City pays $20,000 a year to a 
risk manager for Insurance advice. 

Mr. Turpen said that to his knowledge no one on staff has contacted 
him. He said that If the Commission would like to put this Item over 
staff will be happy to talk to the risk manager about L-shaped carts. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls did not feel the Item should be put over. 

Mr. Turpen said 1t was his understanding that Smarte Carte approached 
23 Insurance companies In order to get Insurance on their basic cart 
design and only one firm would Insure that design. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls asked how many claims there were against 
Smarte Carte. 

Mr. Gene Pastian, Smarte Carte, responded that there are two claims 
pending. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked If the Insurance companies were refusing 
to Insure the type of cart or Smarte Carte Itself. 

Mr. Pastlen responded that each Insurance company had different 
reasons for not Insuring Smarte Carte and they were not necessarily 
all cart related. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls asked what the main reason was. 

Mr. Pastlen responded that he supposed the main reason was Smarte 
Carte's exposure to the general public. He said that the fact that 
Smarte Carte Interacts with the general public makes them a high 



Minutes, Special Meeting, September 23, 1986, Page 4 



insurance risk. He said that the insurance companies were showed 
their standard cart. When a prototype of the L-shaped cart was 
developed it was showed to the insurance companies as well and they 
said they would not insure it. 

Mr. Jim Chamberlin, Delta Airlines, asked that the record show that 
the airlines were unanimous in their opposition to free carts. 

Attached is a copy of Paul Van Wert's letter to Mr. Turpen, dated 
September 11 , 1986. 



F. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 8:25 AM to go into closed session. 



tiLJLtfutfC 



Jerfh Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, Special Meeting, September 23, 1986, Page 5 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRLINE AIRPORT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 



September 11/ 1986 

SEP 1 2 »86 



Mr. Louis A. Turpen 

Director of Airports 

Airports Commission 

City & County of San Francisco 

San Francisco International Airport 

San Francisco, CA 94128 

Dear Lou: 

The airlines find it incredulous that a proposal to provide free luggage 

carts in the Customs Area at San Francisco International Airport has once 

again found its way onto the Airports Commission agenda. Our files on 

this subject go back to 1983/ a period of three years during which the 

Airport staff/ the Airports Commission and other City officials have determined/ 

over and over again/ based on the evidence put before them/ that such 

a service is neither needed/ nor affordable. 

Even more alarming is the City's latest estimate of annual costs to provide 
free carts in Customs/ up 50% to $750/000 annually from the estimate of 
$500/000 provided to the Commission just last year. Let there be no mistake/ 
if implemented as proposed/ every penny of that $750/000 will be paid 
for by the airlines. It will increase our average per square rental rate 
in the Terminal Area by almost $1.00/s.f ./yr. / a financial burden that 
will continue indefinitely and continue to increase. 

This proposal/ as it has always been/ is clearly in contradiction with 
the Airport-Airline Lease and Use Agreement. Sections 701 and 702 thereof 
read: 

" Section 701. Prudent Operation 

City covenants that it will efficiently manage and operate the Airport 
on the basis of sound business and airport management principles in effect 
at airports of comparable size in the continental United States and with 
efficient and prudent control of all capital and operating expenses. 

Section 702. Revenues From Non-Airline Sources 

Consistent with the provisions of Section 701/ City agrees that it will 

operate the Airport in such a manner as to maximize revenues from concessionaires/ 

lessees and other non-airline users; provided/ however/ that City will 



not permit the installation of concession facilities in such a manner 
or at such locations in the Terminal Area as will obstruct traffic or 
impede Airline's ability to perform the functions enumerated in Section 
201 hereinabove." 

When asked for justification/ the City has always referred to the availability 
of free carts at certain overseas airports. As noted above/ this is not 
the basis on which the City has promised to operate SFIA. Does it need 
mentioning that the purposeful dismantling of a viable and valuable concession 
operation is not "consistent" with other City covenants in the lease? 

It is the airlines position that if the City is determined to implement 
this program/ the costs should be netted out of the Annual Service Payments 
transferred from SFIA to the City. Those supporting free carts should 
understand and appreciate the financial consequences involved. 



Sincerely 




Paul J. Van Wert/ Jr. 

Chairman - SFAAAC 
PJV:ba 

cc: Airports Commission 
SFAAAC 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



-T OCTOBER 7, 1986 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 101987 

SAN FRAiMCiU^O 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEfM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

October 7, 1986 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 

A. 
B. 
C. 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 



CALL TO ORDER: 



ROLL CALL: 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 
September 16, 1986 

Special meeting of 
September 23, 1986 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



86-0215 



86-0216 



PAGE 



D. 



E. 



SPECIAL ITEM: 

Retirement Resolution: 

Wally Wortman 86-0217 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Resolution Commending U.S. 

Customs at SFO 86-0218 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Authorization of Award Lease 
of Automatic Teller Machines 
in the North and South Terminal 
Bui ldings 

Resolution Approving the Contin- 
uance of the Operating Permit 
with Chronicle Videotex, Inc. 86-0219 

Revised Five-Year Capital 

Projects Plan 86-0220 

Christian Science Reading 

Room Request for Rent Credit 86-0221 

Award of Professional Services 

Contract to Kennedy/Jenks/ 

Chilton, Inc. - Engineering 

Services for Contract 1017 - 

Expansion of Electrical 

Distribution System - Phase II 86-0222 



4 

4-8 

8 



8-9 



7. Modification to Lease for 

Operation of Public Lockers 86-0223 9 

8. Rejection of Bids: Contract 

No. 1738 - Silt Removal - 1986 86-0224 10 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

9. Declaration of Emergency: 

1432C Runway Closure Light - 

$15,000 86-0225 10 

10. Approval of Northwest Airlines 
Tenant Improvements in South 
Terminal - Contract T-3174 - 

No Cost to Airport 86-0226 10 

11. Request for Assignment of 
Lease for Operation of Public 

Lockers 10 

12. Tenant Improvement: UAL Bldg. 
29 - Western Headquarters Bldg. 
Alterations to 2nd Floor - 
T-3176 - $250,000 - No Cost to 

City 86-0227 10 



13. Request for Approval of 

Travel /Training for Airports 

Commission Representatives 86-0228 11 



CORRESPONDENCE: 11 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 11 



Minutes, October 7, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

October 7, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:05 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward F 1 el she 1 1 , Vice President 

Z.L. Goosby 

Don Richards Stephens 

Absent: Athena Tsougarakls 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the following meetings were adopted by order of the 
Commission President: 

No. 86-0215 Regular meeting of September 16, 1986 

No. 86-0216 Special meeting of September 23, 1986 



SPECIAL ITEM: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 

1. Retirement Resolution: 
Hal ly Wortman 

No. 86-0217 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that Mr. 
Wortman, the Director of Property for the City and County of San 
Francisco, is retiring after 36 years of service to the City, 18 of 
which have been as Director of Property. He said that Mr. Wortman 
has been a very valuable and good friend to the Airports Commission 
and staff over the years. He congratulated him and wished him well 
in his retirement. 



Minutes, October 7, 1986, Page 3 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner F 1 ei she 1 1 said that U.S. Customs at SFO has always done an 
outstanding job and is one of the best operations in the United States. 
He said he receives nothing but compliments about the Customs service from 
friends and business associates who travel. He felt it was time they were 
recognized and honored for the great job they do and introduced a 
resolution commending their fine work. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked that an appropriate resolution be signed by 
Commissioner Flei shell and framed for presentation to Customs. 

The resolution was unanimously adopted. 

No. 86-0218 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was put over. 

2. Authorization to Award Lease of Automatic Teller Machines in the 
North and South Terminal Buildings 

Resolution awarding the Lease of Auto- 
matic Teller Machines in the North and 
South Terminal Buildings to American 
Express Travel Related Services Co., 
Inc. 

Mr. Turpen asked that the item be put over. He said that although 
HRC's approval is anticipated they have a problem with American 
Express. He said that he hoped the problem would be resolved by the 
next meeting. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

3. Resolution Approving the Continuance of the Operating Permit with 
Chronicle Videotex, Inc. 

No. 86-0219 

Mr. Turpen said that this resolution responds to the Commission's 
direction at the September 16 meeting that staff continue an 
operating permit for Chronicle Videotex at the Airport. 

Commissioner Goosby asked that this be looked at in a year to 
determine if It should be bid. 



Revised Five-Year Capital Projects Plan 

No. 86-0220 Resolution approving the Airport's 

revised Five-Year Capital Projects 
Plan (dated October 7, 1986). 



Minutes. October 7, 1986, Page 4 



Commissioner Flei shell commented on the garage re-striping Item. He 
said that garages are normally re-striped every 10 years and this 
garage has hardly been utilized. He also said that three and a half 
years ago the Commission approved staff's request for a $70,000 paint 
striping machine. He assumed that that machine would also have the 
capability to stripe garages. He also suggested at that time that 
since the City owns at least three striping machines an inter- 
departmental work order should be considered. 

Mr. Turpen said that the re-striping is more than just a maintenance 
project. He said that the garage is presently designed to accommo- 
date 7,000 vehicles but in view of the change in the type and size of 
vehicles since the conception of the gagage it has been determined 
that an additional 1,000 spaces could be made in the garage, 
consistent with the structural integrity of the facility. He said 
that in re-striping the garage other options open up, such as 
relocating the rent-a-cars from their current location on the roadway 
to the lower level of the garage and eliminating all the rent-a-car 
buses circling the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen said that he could not respond to Commissioner Fleishell's 
specific question on the ability of the existing equipment to stripe 
the garage. He explained that this is not just maintenance 
re-striping, the entire striping program in the garage will be wiped 
out and re-striped to accommodate 1,000 extra vehicles. He said that 
although the garage is not at its peak 7,000 vehicle capacity, staff 
is looking at about a 1,400 vehicle reserve for the rent-a-cars on 
the ground floor of the garage, leaving close to the 7,000 spaces 
which was the long term plan of the garage. 

Mr. Turpen said that he has broached the subject with the rental car 
people and told them that in addition to what they normally pay the 
Airport there will be a rental fee on the garage. He said that they 
were open to discussion on that. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director, Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, said that a member of his staff, along with Sheldon 
Fein, began talking to the Department of Public Works about this two 
or three months ago. 

Mr. Sheldon Fein, Landside Operations, said that this project not 
only includes striping but also Includes a great deal of sand 
blasting. He said that the garage will have to be closed down a 
level at a time in order to blast the paint off and paint a new 
pattern. He said that DPW is interested in bidding. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the firehouse mentioned was new, where 
it was going to be built and why. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport has two firehouses, one was 
rebuilt about three or four years ago. The second one is the 
original f irehouse/crashhouse located at the intersection of both 
runways. He said that It is a smaller facility and that is the one 
that 1s going to be replaced. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how many calls there are a day. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the average used to be about one an hour 
but currently is about one every two hours, 24-hours-a-day, 365 days 
a year. He said that there is equipment at both firehouses. The 
main firehouse, which the Commission approved the last time around, 
is a combination crash and structural firehouse as well as first aid 
and replaced the oldest building on the Airport. The second 
firehouse 1s strictly a crash firehouse and Is only for aircraft 



Minutes, October 7, 1986, Page 5 



emergency response. He said that the purpose is to have immediate 
access to the airfield and that is why it is located where it is. 

Mr. Bouey added that the existing firehouse has structural defects. 
The existing structure was so small that the equipment would not fit 
so a temporary extention had to be built in order to keep the equip- 
ment out of the elements. He added that staff also wanted to move 
the firehouse. He said that the current firehouse was right in the 
path of the ILS system, which sends a beam out to the aircraft and 
directs it to runway 28R and whenever the traffic moves into or out 
of the firehouse it disrupts the ILS system. He said that the FAA 
has repeatedly asked that the firehouse be moved. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if one would be abandoned, leaving the 
Airport with only one firehouse. 

Mr. Bouey responded that because the Airport has a minimum response 
time from any point on the airfield the firehouse would have to be 
moved to another location 

Commissioner Fleishell asked why the old building by Butler Aviation 
has not been torn down. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that building presently houses the Airports 
radio communications facility and is storage for the Airport's 
emergency supplies and a number of other things. He said he would be 
happy to send Commissioner Fleishell the information. He added that 
because the old buildings on the North Field have been torn down this 
building is the best facility for its purpose. 

Commissioner Fleishell said it was an eyesore and he was not sure 
that it was the most effective use of land. He said that this 
building does nothing but get in the way of Butler's ramp. 

Commissioner Goosby said that according to this, staff was going to 
take Plot 42 and the adjacent AirCal hangar and combine those two 
areas into a cargo center. 

Mr. Turpen said that Plot 42 is not really vacant, it is a parking 
apron. 

Ms. Angela Glttens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, said 
that staff is currently in negotiation with at least one carrier to 
set up a cargo center. She explained that a management structure 
would be established so that one airline would manage that area for 
the Airport and make sure that all of the aircraft that operate there 
are permitted. She said we have had a problem there with aircraft 
flying In and leaving without the Airport's knowledge. 

Mr. Turpen said that management would be asked to remodel 'and build 
at their sole cost and expense and would manage the property for the 
Airport subject to the rules established by the Airport. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if this company would manage the cargo 
handling for other airlines. 

Mr. Turpen responded only for itinerants. 

Commissioner Goosby used Air France as an example of an airline whose 
cargo needs must be addressed. 

Ms. Gittens said that Air France is looking for cargo area. She said 
that although It Is not Ideal for their combined passenger/freighter 
service, they are anticipating putting on a 747 freighter in the 
future. 

Minutes, October 7, 1986, Page 6 



Mr. Turpen said that this property Is farther away from JAL and Is on 
the bay-side of the terminals. From the standpoint of making up 
cargo and bringing It around to load on a passenger aircraft, the 
distances are difficult. He said that the area is really more for 
the pure cargo operator and not combination-type activities. 

Ms. Glttens said it is really for the small package carriers like 
Emery, Purolator and Orion. 

Commissioner Goosby wondered why Air France could not make the same 
cargo arrangements as Qantas. 

Ms. Gittens said that the problem is that Air France does not have 
space. 

Commissioner Goosby argued that this space is available. 

Ms. Gittens responded that they were offered Plot 42 but turned it 
down. It Is not a practical alternative for them. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if staff has considered putting this up for 
cargo handlers rather than airlines. 

Mr. Turpen responded that staff has given it some thought but since 
the Airport is involved In the Master Plan process it is staff's 
intention that any cargo facilities that are to be constructed will 
be constructed by the Airport and leased by the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen said that this Is a very limited, postage-size ramp with a 
building that is antiquated and 1n serious need of renovation and 
up-grade. It 1s extremely remote from anything on the Airport and Is 
primarily designed for a smaller operation. He said that Air France 
was offered an opportunity to go to this space and turned 1t down 
because it was not satisfactory to their needs. He said that the 
major passenger/cargo carriers want to be on the frontage road side 
of the Airport. 

Commissioner Goosby said he did not see the difference. 

Mr. Turpen said that an option is to build a unit cargo terminal and 
lease units to the various airlines. 

Commissioner Goosby said that since you are offering it to a private 
business why not offer it to a cargo handler. He said that he did 
not see the distinction between an airline and a cargo handler, they 
are both outside businesses. 

Mr. Turpen said that Issue number one is the long term Master Plan 
and what the Airport Intends to do. He said that we simply are not 
going to put that In the hands of any private party. He explained 
that a line has traditionally been drawn at the Airport where space 
will be rented to airlines but not to cargo handlers or freight 
forwarders. He said that the minute the door Is opened to one cargo 
handler others will want entry and we simply do not have the space. 

Mr. Turpen said that Ms. Gittens Is investigating the possibility. 
The $200,000 was Included in the event the Airport decides to do it. 
It has nothing to do with giving it to anybody else. 

Commissioner Goosby did not understand why Qantas alone Is able to 
hire a cargo handler. 

Mr. Turpen said that Air France was offered the opportunity to go to 
Plot 42 but turned It down. He said that Air France wants what 



Minutes, October 7, 1986. Page 7 



everyone else wants, a good piece of cargo property In the exact 
location they want. He said staff has been talking to Delta, 
Northwest, Republic and Western about this. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what the advantage was to the Airport in 
not building the cargo facility. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport saves $200,000 and 1s an option 
that Is being considered. He added that the Western/Delta merger and 
the Northwest/Republic merger will free up some space but unfortu- 
nately our timetable and Air France's timetable may not be the same. 
He said that he understands their desire to get In but there are 
hundreds of airlines who would like to walk In a get a gate and a 
piece of ticket counter and it's just a matter of working with them 
until we can free up the space they need. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that if the Airport built the cargo area It 
might offer a fair distribution of cargo handling at the Airport. He 
asked staff to consider if it would work in the Master Plan. 



5. Christian Science Reading Room Request for Rent Credit 

No. 86-0221 Resolution approving a rent credit to 

the Christian Science Reading Room for 
costs incurred to provide electrical 
service to their North Terminal 
premises. 



Award of Professional Services Contract to Kennedy/ Jenks/Chi 1 ton, 
Inc. - Engineering Services for Contract 1017 - Expansion of 
Electrical Distribution System - Phase II 

No. 86-0222 This work Is the second phase of a 

project to expand the 12 kilovolt 
electrical distribution system 
throughout the Airport to replace 
outmoded, deteriorated 4 kilovolt 
systems and to provide alternate 
services where only single service is 
available at present. 

Mr. David Novogrodsky, Business Manager for the Professional and 
Technical Engineers, Local 21, said he represented engineers and 
technicians as well as accountants and others at the Airport. He 
asked that the Item be put over to the next meeting. He felt that 
this was the type of work that Is typically and easily done by City 
employees. He told the Commission that he was meeting with the Board 
of Supervisor's Finance Committee and probably with the Mayor's 
Office. He said it does not make sense to contract out for this 
work, either from an economic or a Civil Serlvce standpoint. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
said he had no problem in putting this Item over for two weeks but 
staff has spent the last several months writing to Public Works, the 
Port and the PUC trying to get City employees to do this work. Mr. 
Yuen said that every City department has this type of personnel and 
each department responded that they were unable to do the work. He 
said that yesterday Mr. Turpen informed the staff that the Mayor 1s 
planning to cut 500 positions from next years budget so It will be an 
uphill battle to get these positions. 



Minutes, October 7, 1986, Page 8 



Commissioner Stephens said he did not think the City could do it as 
cheaply as private Industry. 

Mr. Yuen said that it could if the employees were hired on an 
as-needed basis. 

Mr. Turpen said that that is not the Intent here. The intent is that 
we hire City employees and keep them on the payroll regardless of the 
level of work. He said that in 1981 an agreement was made with Local 
21 that the Airport would maintain a certain volume of in-house work 
to protect our employees. The Airport kept that agreement. He 
recommended moving ahead with this matter so that Mr. Yuen can 
proceed. 

Commissioners Fleishell and Stephens agreed that the item should be 
voted on today. 

Commissioner Goosby told Mr. Novogrodsky that it was not that the 
Commission was unsympathetic but the Union has had months. 

Mr. Novogrodsky argued that this has been brewing for months but It 
was called to the Union's attention only a few weeks ago. He said 
that at the present time a battle is developing over the use of 
contracts such as this. He said that this contract is typical of the 
kind of work that City employees can do. It is not expert and not 
one-time only but is the kind of work that is bread and butter City 
employee work and in that sense it is prohibited by Charter from 
contracting out. He said it has to be done by Civil Service 
employees. He said that the City has not handled this 1n line with 
provisions in the Charter. Mr. Novogrodsky told the Commission that 
the Mayor has already revised her contract procedures and the Board 
of Supervisors is going to make changes, particularly with regard to 
staffing. He said he will be back to oppose this contract. He did 
not think it made sense and again asked for a two week delay. 



7. Modification to Lease for Operation of public Lockers 

No. 86-0223 Resolution authorizing the reduction 

of the minimum annual guarantee in the 
Lease for operation of public lockers. 

Mr. Turpen explained that with the current world situation the 
Airport has been compelled, on certain occasions, to shut down all 
the lockers in the public areas. He commended American Locker for 
their responsiveness and said that the lockers have been shut down 
for quite some time and has impacted their revenue. He said that 
this Item simply sets forth a formula wherein as Airport Director he 
would be allowed to adjust their minimum annual guarantee based on 
the percentage of lockers that are open. He asked for the 
Commission's approval and their recognition of American Lockers 
responsiveness to the Airport's concerns. He said that when American 
Lockers was asked to shut down their lockers they did so immediately 
and without question. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if there was back-up documentation. He 
said that in the event of an audit the closure period can then be 
tied in with the number of lockers and the reduction. 

Mr. Turpen responded that staff files written correspondence but he 
will send the Commission a report. 

Commissioner Goosby said that this was not only a logical step for 
the Airport to take but It was just and compassionate as well. 

Minutes, October 7. 1986, Page 9 



Rejection of Bids: Contract No. 1738 
Silt Removal - 1986 

No. 86-0224 Resolution rejecting all bids for 

Contract No. 1738. These bids were 
substantially over the budget. 

Mr. Turpen explained that this item addresses the flooding problem 
West of Bayshore. He said that Mr. Bouey is anxious to get the 
contract rebid. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

With the exception of Item #11, the Consent Calendar was unanimously 
adopted. 

9. Declaration of Emergency: 

1432C Runway Closure Light - $15,000 

No. 86-0225 



10. Approval of Northwest Airlines Tenant Improvements in the South 
Terminal - Contract T-3174 - No Cost to Airport 

No. 86-0226 Resolution approving final plans and 

specifications and authorizing 
construction modification of ticket 
counters, holdroom podiums, flight 
information display systems and fuel 
pits at the airline's own expense. 



Item #1 1 was put over. 

11. Request for Assignment of Lease for Operation of Public Lockers 

Resolution consenting to the assign- 
ment of lease for operation of public 
lockers from American Locker Co., Inc 
to Amlock, Inc. 

Mr. Turpen explained that some of the paperwork has not yet been 
received by staff and he did not want the Commission to act on this 
item until all of the paperwork Is 1n. 



Items 12 and 13 were uanimously adopted. 

12. Tenant Improvement: 

UAL Bldg. 29 - Western Headquarters Bldg. 

Alterations to 2nd Floor 

T-3176 - $250,000 - No Cost to City 

No. 86-0227 



Minutes, October 7, 1986, Page 10 



3. Request for Approval of Travel /Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

NO. 86-0228 



* * * 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



* * * 



J. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:38 AM to go into closed session. 



Jftan Caramatti 
Amission Secretary 



Minutes, October 7, 1986, Page 11 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 13 1987 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRArv 



MINUTES 



OCTOBER 21, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

OR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

October 21, 1986 



CALENDAR 


AGENDA 




SECTION 


ITEM 


TITLE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 



RESOLUTION 

NUMBER PAGE 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

October 7, 1986 86-0230 



D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 



Review of Amended Specifica- 
tions - Airport Motor Coach 
Service Agreement 3-4 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 



Commendation for United 

Airlines 86-0231 4-5 

Resolution to Relocate Food 

and Beverage Facility at 

Entrance to Boarding Area 'E' 

of the North Terminal 86-0232 5 

Operating Agreement for Self- 

Service Baggage Cart System 86-0233 5-6 

Request for Assignment of 

Lease for Operation of Public 

Lockers 86-0234 6 

Authorizing Agreement for 

Parking /Transportation 

Management Program 6-7 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

7. Retirement Resolution: 

Lin Tai Louie 86-0235 7 

8. Retirement Resolution: 

Ted Mynatt 86-0236 7 

9. Type II Modification for Two 
South Terminal Complex 
Construction Contracts 

- Contract 1410ABCD: 

South Terminal Renovation 

- Phase I 86-0238 

- Contract 1414AB: 
Boarding Area 'B' 

Renovation 86-0237 7 

10. Statistical Adjustment 1986/87 

- Joint Use Billings Under 

Lease and Use Agreement 86-0239 7 

11. Statistical Adjustment 1986/87 

- Joint Use Billings Under 

Lease and Use Agreement 86-0240 7-8 

12. Resolution Ratifying Action 
of Commission President in 
Declaring an Emergency for the 
Immediate Removal of Hazardous 
Wastes at Boarding Area 'C 
Site Excavation - $24,000 

Encumbered 86-0241 8 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 
SESSION: 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

Octobe 21, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 

Absent: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z.L. Goosby 

Athena Tsougarakis 

Don Richards Stephens 



C. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
86-0229 authorizing the Director to 
hire the law firm of Liebert, Cassidy 
and Frierson in matters of employee 
discipline and employee relations, 
including handling litigation and the 
training of Airport management and 
supervisors in dealing with employee 
discipline and related matters, at the 
closed session of October 7, 1986. 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of October 7, 1986 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 86-0230 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Review of Amended Specifications - Airport Motor Coach Service 
Agreement 



Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that the bid for the Airport 
Motor Coach Service Agreement is still pending and staff hopes to 
move this matter forward in the near future. He said that staff has 
provided for the Commission's consideration some areas requiring 
amendment, such as the rolling stock, insurance and the downtown 
terminal. He said that although it is the Commission's intent that 
the downtown terminal obligation be assumed by the successful bidder, 
the question of whether or not the terminal must be used remains 
open. He said it was his understanding that what the Commission 
wants and what our current proposed agreement states are two 
different things. He said that the current proposed agreement 
requires that the successful bidder operate from the downtown 
terminal. He believed that while the Commission always intended to 
have a location somewhere in the downtown area, it did not 
necessarily have to be the downtown terminal. 

Commissioner Goosby said that that was worked out during the hearings 
and is reflected in this language. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it reflects more than that because there 
were two issues involved. The first issue was what to do with the 
downtown terminal. The Commission decided that the successful bidder 
would have to assume that obligation at the unamortized portion of 
the investment. The second issue was whether or not the successful 
bidder would have to use the downtown terminal. He said that 
according to his recollection of those discussions, the Commission 
wanted a downtown location and the winning bidder would have to 
assume the terminal, however, the winning bidder could either elect 
to use the terminal or assume another location. He said he would 
recommend that that option be amended into the specifications. 

Mr. Turpen said that he did not need an answer from the Commission 
today but he did want to open up the subject. He explained that it 
would be necessary to hold another pre-bid conference on the specific 
items intended to be changed, and a public hearing on those same 
items. 

Commissioner Flei shell asked Mr. Turpen to call him on this matter as 
he has some comments having to do with litigation. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item No. 2 was unanimously adopted. 

2. Commendation for United Airlines 

No. 86-0231 Resolution commending United Airlines 

for new flight procedures on 727' s and 
737's which result in quieter 
operation. 

Mr. Turpen said that United has instituted new procedures to help 



mitigate noise in the Airport environs area and have offered their 
new procedures to the other airlines at SFO. He said it was the 
Commission's feeling that United should be commended for their 
efforts. 



The last resolve was eliminated in Item No. 3 and unanimously adopted. 

3. Resolution to Relocate Food and Beverage Facility at Entrance to 
Boarding Area 'E' of the North Terminal 

No. 86-0232 Resolution authorizing the relocation 

of Host Ice Cream/Cookie Shop to a 
larger facility and approving the 
schematic design for said facility. 

Mr. Turpen said that the last resolve in the resolution should be 
eliminated since the schematic design has not yet been prepared. 

Mr. Turpen said that this matter has previously come before the 
Commission. He said that the Commission package shows the Ice Cream/ 
Cookie Parlor relocated toward the throat of the International /North 
Terminal connector. He said that the Commission indicated at a 
previous meeting that they would support such a relocation to allow 
for an expansion of the retail concession space. Currently occupied 
by Aeroplex, the space will be part of the new principal concession 
for Boarding Area 'E', the American/Delta concourse. This item 
defines the area that will be available for the principal 
concessionaire and allows staff to proceed with Host on the design of 
the modified Ice Cream/Cookie Parlor. 



Items 4 and 5 were unanimously adopted. 

4. Operating Agreement for Self-Service baggage Cart System 

No. 86-0233 Resolution authorizing staff to hold a 

pre-bid conference for the Operating 
Agreement for a Self-Service Baggage 
Cart System. 

Mr. Turpen said that although the current contract for the self- 
service luggage cart concession does not expire until 1990, in view 
of the difficulties in the past of securing interested parties to bid 
this item staff has decided to start the process early. He felt that 
if interest could not be generated in three years then there is none. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked about the status of the funding. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airports Commission adopted this item 
on September 23; the paperwork for the supplemental appropriation was 
prepared and forwarded to the Controller on September 25. The 
legislation is now being prepared to go to the Board of Supervisors. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if staff routinely follows up on these 
items. 

Mr. Turpen told Commissioner Bernstein that staff does monitor these 
items and this is no different from any other supplemental put into 
the system. He said that the paperwork is immediately prepared and 
delivered to City Hall. When an item is placed on the Board of 
Supervisors calendar an Airport representative attends that meeting 



Minutes, October 21, 1986, Page 5 



to answer questions. 

Mr. Turpen said he was not aware of any emergency regarding this item 
and that staff was following the standard procedure. He said that 
the Commission could declare an emergency if it wishes and he would 
then have a staff member walk this item through. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that each prospective bidder should 
present the cart intended for use at the pre-bid conference so that 
there is no problem with the cart design after the contract has been 
awarded. 



5. Request for Assignment of Lease for Operation of Public Lockers 

No. 86-0234 Resolution consenting to the assign- 

ment of the lease for operation of 
public lockers from American Locker 
Co., Inc. to Amlock, Inc. 



Item No. 6 was put over. 

6. Authorizing Agreement for Parking/Transportation Management Program 

Authorizes Director to enter into 
agreement with RIDES for Bay Area 
Commuters, Inc. to provide San 
Francisco International Airport with 
employee-oriented Parking /Transpor- 
tation Management Program. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked that the item be put over in order to 
give him a chance to study it more carefully. 

Commissioner Goosby asked why this was not put out to bid. 

Mr. Tony Bruzzone, Airport Operations, responded that RIDES was a 
non-profit organization funded by the State to do programs like 
this. He said that as far as he knew they were the only organization 
doing this type of program. 

Commissioner Goosby said that since this did not go out for bid he 
would feel better if staff researched the field to determine if there 
were other organizations capable of performing this service. 

Mr. Bruzzone asked if the Commission wanted a formal process through 
an RFP or simply notify organizations by telephone. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the Commission might have additional 
questions after this item has been studied and suggested staff wait 
before proceeding. 

Commissioner Fleishell added that the letter was not clear as to 
whether or not this firm did the Varian Corporation study. 

Mr. Bruzzone said that although they assisted he believed Varian 
hired their own employee to do this. He added that there were 
reasons for staff's recommendation not to handle this. 

Commissioner Fleishell commented that the letter implies that they 
did the Varian study, but that was not his information. 



Minutes, October 21, 1986, Page 6 



Mr. Turpen said that staff will present additional information to the 
Commission. He said it is estimated that roughly 2000 spaces could 
be recovered at the Airport through this program which would mean 
about $55.00 per space. Mr. Turpen said that there is no more 
available parking at the Airport and it is imperative that some type 
of program be installed. He said that the Airport does not have any 
vested interest in any one particular avenue over the other. 

Mr. Turpen said that the matter will be put over and staff will 
return to the Commission with information on whether or not there are 
other companies that specialize in this service and give the 
Commission information on staff's projections on the likely recovery 
of parking spaces. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. Item No. 18 was unanimously 
adopted as amended. 

7. Retirement Resolution: 
Lin Tai Louie 

No. 86-0235 



Retirement Resolution: 
Ted Mynatt 

No. 86-0236 



9. Type II Modification for Two South Terminal Complex Construction 
Contracts 

No. 86-0238 Contract 1410ABCD: 

South Terminal Renovation - 

Phase I - $54,943, 

No. 86-0237 Contract 1414AB: 

Boarding Area 'B' Renovation - $77,527, 



10. Statistical Adjustment 1986-87 - Joint Use Billings Under Lease and 
Use Agreement 

No. 86-0239 Resolution adjusting 1986-87 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline-Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for UTA French Airlines. 



Item No. 11 was unanimously adopted as amended. 

11. Statistical Adjustment 1986-87 - Joint Use Billings Under Lease and 
Use Agreement 



Minutes, October 21, 1986, Page 7 



No. 86-0240 Resolution adjusting 1986-87 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline-Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Air France. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the enplanements for Air France 
should be changed from 18,701 to 9,350. 



12. Resolution Ratifying Action of Commission President In Declaring an 
Emergency for the Immediate Removal of Hazardous Wastes at Boarding 
Area 'C Site Excavation - $24,000 Encumbered 

No. 86-0241 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 

* * * 

K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:17 AM to go into closed session. 



Jeln Caramatti 
Smmission Secretary 



Minutes, October 21, 1986, Page 8 



J> 



'J- 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



D °CU MENTS 0EpT 






NOVEMBER 4, 1986 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

November 4, 1986 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 2 

B. ROLL CALL: 2 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 
CLOSED SESSION: 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

November 4, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z.L. Goosby 

Athena Tsougarakis 

Don Richards Stephens 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no calendared business before the Commission the meeting 
adjourned at 9:02 AM to go into closed session. 





ian Caramatti 
amission Secretary 



Minutes, November 4, 1986, Page 2 






SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



bGCUMENTS Dl.'T 

rtB 181987 

SAN FRANCISCO 
HUSLIC LIBRARY 



NOVEMBER 12, 1986 
SPECIAL MEETING 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

November 12, 1986 
SPEICAL MEETING 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



CALL TO ORDER: 2 

ROLL CALL: 2 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 
CLOSED SESSION: 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

November 12, 1986 
SPECIAL MEETING 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 104 of the Veteran's War Memorial Building, 401 Van Ness 
Avenue, San Francisco, CA. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Flelshell, Vice President 
Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakls 
Don Richards Stephens 



C. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no calendared business before the Commission the meeting 
adjourned at 9:01 AM to go into closed session. 




(Mill^JTh 



in Caramatti 
C(6/nm1ssion Secretary 



Minutes. Special Meeting, November 12, 1986, Page 2 






„ SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



NOVEMBER 18, 1986 



DOCUMfcWTS DEPT. 

MAR 3 1987 



PUELIC LI3RARY 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 



COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

November 18, 1986 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

B. ROLL CALL: 

C ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

October 21 , 1986 86-0247 

D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. Authorization to Conduct a Pre- 
Bid Conference for Airport Motor 

Coach Service Agreement 86-0248 4-7 

2. $932,268 Supplemental Appropri- 
ation to Add Positions 86-0249 7-8 

3. Authorizing Agreement for 
Parking/Transportation Manage- 
ment Program 9 

4. Resolution Approving Schematic 
Design of expanded Ice Cream/ 

Cookie Shop 86-0250 9-10 

5. Authorization to Award the Lease 
of Automatic Teller Machines in 
the North and South Terminal 

Buildings 86-0251 10 

6. Modification to Lease for Operation 
of Public Lockers to add Full 
Service Baggage Storage and Other 

Services 86-0252 10 

7. Resolution Awarding Lease - 

Evergreen Alrl Ines 1 1 



8. Resolution to Modify Standard 

Concession Lease 11 

9. Hours of Operation - SFIA Medical 

Clinic - 90 Day Trial Period 86-0253 11-12 

10. Award of Airport Contract No. 1438: 
Reconstrutlon and Overlay of 
Taxlway 'F' 86-0254 12-13 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

11. Approval of Sublease between 
American Airlines, Inc. and 

Wings West Airlines 86-0255 13 

12. Resolution to Consent to Assign- 
ment from Duty Free Shoppers 
(LAX, Inc.) to Duty Free Shoppers 

Limited Partnership 86-0256 13 

13. Resolution Modifying United 
Airlines Lease and Use Agreement 

No. 82-0126 86-0257 13 

14. Redesign of 'Forget-Me-Not' Shop 

in the North Terminal 86-0258 13 

15. Resolution to Remodel the Beverage 
Facility at the South Rotunda of 
Boarding Area 'B' in the South 

Terminal 86-0259 13 

16. Transfer of Donated Wall Mural to 

City's General Art Collection 86-0260 14 

17. The Parry Contract 86-0261 14-16 

18. Professional Services Agreement 
- $25,000 - Sequoia Analytical 
Laboratory - Waste and Testing 

and Analysis 86-0262 16 



CORRESPONDENCE: 16 



J. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 16 



Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

November 18, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. 



B. ROLL CALL: < 
Present: 

Absent: 



Morris Bernstein, President 
Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Don Richards Stephens 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of October 21, 1986 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 86-0247 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution 
86-0242 approving the conditions to a 
noise variance to operate San 
Francisco International Airport; and, 
86-0243 regarding the settlement of a 
litigated claim at the closed session 
of November 4, 1986; and 86-0244 
amending the agreement with Morrison 
and Foerster; and, 86-0245 and 86-0246 
regarding the settlement of litigated 
claims at the closed session of 
November 12, 1986. 



Minutes, November 18. 1986, Page 3 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items Initiated by Commissioners 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Items #1 and #2 were unanimously adopted. 

1. Authorization to Conduct Pre-Bid Conference for Airport Motor Coach 
Service Agreement 

No. 86-0248 Resolution approving leasehold speci- 

fications and authorizing Director to 
hold a Pre-Bid Conference for Airport 
Motor Coach Service Agreement. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Steve Leonoudakis, SFO Airporter, If 
he wished to address the Commission. 

Mr. Leonoudakis said that from his company's standpoint the ground 
transportation industry has been devastated. He said that in their 
peak year Airporter carried 2-million passengers; this year they will 
be lucky if they carry slightly more than 900,000 passengers. 

Mr. Leonoudakis said that if the Commission wants peak, high-quality 
service at a reasonable low fare the minimum should not be set at 
$400,000 versus 12 percent of the gross. He felt the amount was far 
too high given the current state of the market. He reminded the 
Commission that it is only granting a mere non-exclusive permit, 
unlike the limousine service where an exclusive contract to serve Is 
granted. He complained that the Commission Is no longer offering 
what it used to but 1s still requiring that the operator offer first 
class service, a fleet of buses, a terminal, and scheduling every 
15-minutes. He explained that all this necessitates a labor force 
consisting of drivers, mechanics, dispatchers, cashiers, a garage for 
the buses and a staff to run it. He said that the labor quotient 
comes to $6-million annually, with another $6-mi 1 1 ion to staff and 
capitalize the business. Mr. Leonoudakis said that if you divide the 
$400,000 being proposed by the number of passengers currently being 
transported by Airporter it comes to 70# a passenger. He said that 
the van competition currently serving the Airport pays 35* a loop, or 
5* per passenger If the van leaves the Airprt with its seven 
passenger capacity. 

Mr. Leonoudakis said that this business does not function just by 
taking traffic from the Airport and deadheading back although that Is 
what Is happening to his side of the Industry. The big bus Industry 
has very few passengers that It is taking back to the Airport because 
there is now competition from 17 other providers. 

Mr. Leonoudakis told the Commission that $400,000 and 12 percent will 
result In a higher fare. If the Commission wants the public to be 
served at a reasonably low fare the minimum should be set at $150,000 
against 5 percent. He reminded the Commission that the Director's 
recommendation for the vans was $1.00 a loop but the Commission 
reduced It to 35*. 

Mr. Leonoudakis said that Airporter has been operating on a permit 
since June of this year and that they were forced to sign that 
document and pay 16-1/4 percent. He said It has been devastating to 

Minutes. November 18, 1986, Page 4 



them because the business just isn't there. He urged the Commission 
to act fairly in this matter and set the minimum at 5 percent against 
$150,000. 

Mr. Leonoudakis also asked the Commission if it would consider making 
Airporter's current fee retroactive in light of what the vans are 
paying. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, felt that to get into protracted 
public testimony on what Is simply a request by staff to hold a 
pre-bid conference Is not productive. This item simply seeks the 
Commission's authorization to conduct a pre-bid conference at which 
comments, such as Mr. Leonoudaki s' s, can be raised, evaluated and 
shared with the Commission. At that point it would be appropriate 
for the Commission to make a determination as to whether they wish to 
pursue staff's recommendation as It will then be formulated, or, to 
pursue any of the recommendations of persons attending the pre-b1d 
conference. He said that It Is pre-mature to enter Into a debate 
over mlnlmums or percentages until the pre-bid conference has been 
conducted. Typically, after a pre-bid conference staff presents the 
Commission with comments and suggestions of the prospective bidders 
in order to give the Commission a range of options. The Commission 
then decides what it wants to do. At that point staff will go 
forward and bid this service. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. James Clapp if he wished to address 
the Commission. 

Mr. Clapp, attorney representing SFO Continental Air Transport, said 
that his client is one of the eight bidders on this contract deemed 
qualified last year. After the last meeting at which this item was 
considered he addressed a letter to Mr. Turpen, with a copy to 
Commissioner Bernstein, in which he requested a conference on this 
matter and on the proposed changes. He felt that at this stage the 
conference should be attended exclusively by and set up for the 
consideration of the existing qualified bidders. He said that the 
Human Rights Commission has qualified his client for minority status 
and he is concerned that If this Is re-opened additional bidders 
could diminish their opportunity as there are already a significant 
number of bidders. He said that at this point there has been no 
consideration to those qualified bidders as to whether or not they 
could meet or encourage the types of proposed changes suggested by 
Mr. Turpen. 

Mr. Clapp said that the resolution It is not just a resolution to 
consider a pre-bid conference, it also approves the proposed 
changes. He felt that these changes should be considered at the 
conference and not pre-approved before the conference occurs. He 
felt that Mr. Turpen slightly misstated himself In what he Is asking 
the Commission to consider. 

Mr. Clapp asked that the conference be held among qualified bidders 
and not as a "pre-bid conference". Also, that authorization or 
approval by the Commission at this time of the proposed changes In 
the contract be deferred until after the conference Is held. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls responded that the nature of the business of 
ground transportation has changed considerably since last year and 
she felt that the Airport would be remiss In not opening this up 
again. As to the second Issue, she responded that the Commission Is 
simply establishing a foundation for discussion at the pre-bid 
conference. She told Mr. Clapp that this Is the first stage of a 
three stage approval process. The second stage Is when the 



Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 5 



Commission looks at staff's final recommendations as well as the 
alternatives proposed by the prospective bidders. 

Mr. Turpen added for the record that these changes were brought 
before the Commission previously at which time staff asked the 
members if they wanted to establish a new foundation, get away from 
the cents-per-deplaned passenger concept, which was a conceptual 
approach to establishing the bid, and go to the percentage of gross, 
which is what the Commission elected to do. He said that the 
percentage amount is still an open issue because the Commission has 
not made a final decision nor has a pre-bid conference been held. He 
said that it is imperative that everyone understand the Commission's 
current thinking and these changes will allow us to send out specifi- 
cations which reflect that thinking. 

Commissioner Goosby said he objected to the restriction on advertis- 
ing when the Commission first approved the specifications and raised 
the same objection once again. He said that If it is becoming that 
difficult for bus companies to return the kind of money the Airport 
hopes for then it would seem that advertisements on the exterior of 
the vehicles would help them meet the minimium guarantee. He argued 
that taxis display advertising and thought that advertisements were 
tastefully done on City buses and make an appreciable amount of 
money. He hoped that In the pre-bld conference the prospective 
bidders will make a point of this if they feel it would be helpful to 
them. He said that not much was said about this at the last pre-bid 
conference and that comments from prospective bidders would be 
helpful to him when this comes back to the Commission. He concluded 
by adding that it was an unfair and unnecessary restriction. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he would vote for it with the under- 
standing that the Commission will have another opportunity for 
discussion. He told Mr. Clapp that pre-bid conferences were very 
important because they offered the Commission different points of 
view. 

Mr. Turpen explained that this Is only an authorization to conduct a 
pre-bid conference, it is not an authorization to bid. He said that 
he felt it was important to send out a bid package which clearly 
indicates what staff plans on requiring. He suggested that the final 
resolve be amended to contain the wording: "...the Commission 
approves the preliminary specifications", thereby indicating that 
this is the Commission's current thinking but by no means is this the 
final word. 

The Commission agreed. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that at some point he would like to know 
how staff arrived at the $400,000 figure. 

Mr. Turpen said that about a year ago the Commission spent three full 
days In public hearings and this was the amount arrived at. He said 
staff has been trying to sort this out since 1981 and has had several 
pre-bid conferences since that time so the figure should not be a 
surprise. He added that whether or not the minimum remains $400,000 
Is another matter. 

Mr. Turpen said that Commissioner Tsougarakls's point that the 
business has chanegd Is valid and that Is why the van option was 
added. It Is staff's Intention, with the Commission's permission, to 
at least get started In the process. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that he was not saying that it was wrong 
but that he was puzzled. He asked If Alrporter didn't have certain 



Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 6 



advantages over other operators. 

Mr. Turpen responded that Airporter has a distinct advantage. He 
said that they are the only operator downstairs, they have their own 
curb space and they are the only operator to have booths Inside the 
terminals from which to sell tickets. 

Mr. Turpen said that the problem was that the business has changed 
and people are no longer going to a central point to catch a bus. He 
said that the van option is included under the current permit and the 
only requirement Is that the current permittee file with the Airport 
Director a detailed operating schedule of how they will utilize vans 
in conjunction with large buses. He said that there 1s nothing to 
preclude a combination of large buses and vans by the current 
permittee on the lower level of the Airport but they have not yet 
filed a request with him. He said that that request will be looked 
at very careful ly. 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

2. $932,268 Supplemental Appropriation to Add Positions 

No. 86-0249 Supplemental appropriation to add 

sixty-three positions needed to handle 
increased workload from (1) dramatic 
increases in passenger traffic; (2) 
the implementation of the new Ground 
Transportation Rules and Regulations; 

(3) increased Airport security; and, 

(4) the completion of Boarding Area 



Mr. Turpen said that since 1980-81 the Airport has added only nine 
positions to its staffing, for an Increase of one percent. He said 
that during this period the total number of terminal passengers has 
increased by 30 percent, the size of the terminal area has increased 
dramatically with the opening of Boarding Area 'D', the new 
International Terminal, and we are now facing opening up the entire 
South Terminal . 

Commissioner Goosby asked when these people were going to be hired. 

Mr. Turpen said that some of these positions will be filled as soon 
as approval is received. He told the Commission that even with those 
new positions the Airport's cost per enplaned passenger will go down 
by 10*. from $3.71 to $3.61. He said that there Is a move to cut 
positions within the City from various departments but he felt that 
before positions are cut there should be an examination of how many 
positions have been added since 1980 by the major departments. He 
said that there has been a significant Increase In total head count 
1n almost every City department except the Airport. Mr. Turpen told 
the Commission that the nine positions were allowed, In great 
measure, because of the productivity Increases 1n the facilities/ 
operations end of the business and since certain terminal areas were 
closed down there hasn't been a need to be at full staffing. 

Commissioner Goosby asked If the Mayor agreed to approve the 
additional positions. 

Mr. Turpen responded that at the last budget hearing with the Mayor 
her position was that she would entertain a request for additional 
positions at the time that they would be required as part of the 

Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 7 



development of the Airport. He added that the Mayor is well aware 
that the Airport has been extremely careful about adding new 
positions . 

Mr. Turpen said that in 1979-80 the Airport went back to zero-based 
budgeting and outside consultants were brought 1n to take a look at 
the entire head count. The consultants agreed that the head count 
was satisfactory to handle the level at that time. As a result, a 
commitment was made to the Commission that the head count would not 
Increase beyond the 1980-81 level unless mandated to do so. He 
explained that the nine positions were mandated for the Exhibition 
Program in addition to a couple of other positions added along the 
way. 

Mr. Turpen said that Jim Chamberlain of Delta Airlines called him to 
express his concern with the Item but agreed to waive his concern 
based on the Airport's commitment to him that no hiring would be done 
for any of these positions until such time as staff has had the 
opportunity to sit down with the airlines to discuss this matter. He 
said that this Is a two to three month process so he would not 
anticipate being able to hire anyone until sometime In the Spring, 
which would be close to the time that these positions would be 
required. He said that these are custodial and traffic control 
officer positions. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if they would be approved before the 
next budget has to be submitted. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they should be. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if that would be a problem for the 
next budget cycle. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he did not think so since the Mayor has 
approved them and obviously recognizes the need. 

Ms. Gittens said that in situations like this staff is frequently 
caught in a Catch 22 position. If a supplemental Is not anticipated 
for approval until a later date and positions are not filled until 
later then the question, "Why don't you put it In the budget" is 
asked. When positions are requested in the budget, the comment "We 
don't want to add positions to the budget" is made. She said that 
many of these positions were in last years budget and it was 
requested that they be removed and placed in a supplemental. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it was true that 17 percent of the 
calls are not answered. 

Mr. Turpen responded that paging has Increased dramatically because 
of passenger volume. He said that positions could actually be cut If 
paging Is eliminated but the Commission made a policy decision to 
offer paging as a service at the Airport. Paging Is a significant 
manpower demand on the Airport 20 hours-a-day. He felt It was a good 
Idea and supported the service aspect but felt that If we Intend to 
provide the service then It should be staffed at the appropriate 
level, or it should be abandoned. He felt that passengers should not 
be frustrated In their attempts to use a service the Airport claims 
Is available. He said that the Installation of computers a couple of 
years ago forestalled an Increase In staff, but we are now to the 
point where the operators are needed on the consoles In order to keep 
up. 



Minutes, November 18. 1986. Page 8 



The following item was put over to the December 2, 1986 meeting. 

3. Authorizing Agreement for Parking/Tranportation Management Program 

Authorizes Director to enter into 
agreement with RIDES for Bay Area 
Commuters, Inc. to provide San 
Francisco Internationl Airport with 
employee-oriented Par king /Management 
Services. 

Mr. Turpen said that Commissioner Flelshell asked that this Item be 
put over until his return. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls said that she did not understand why such a 
big deal was being made out of this. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he thought Commissioner Flelshell was 
somewhat puzzled by traffic pattern and he would like to delve deeper 
into this. 

Mr. Turpen said that he did not think there was a time constraint on 
this but It has been pending before the Commission for about four 
weeks. He said that either way he would like to see some movement in 
December. The Airport must get Into some type of program to diminish 
private vehicle usage among employees at the Airport. We are in a 
critical parking situation and a move must be made to carry us 
through the next couple of years until we can do something about 
developing the West of Bayshore property. He said that the item 
addresses this situation. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls asked what type of track record they had. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there were two case studies Included on 
page 4 of his memo: the first was on Varian, which explained that 
even when they hired 1000 new employees the company actually 
decreased their average dally traffic by over 1000 automobiles. The 
second case study was Bishop Ranch Development in San Ramon with 
12,000 employees. 

Mr. Turpen said that with a concerted effort and a good promotion 
program there are some hard facts to back up the notion that people 
will ride share. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

4. Resolution Approving Schematic Design of Expanded Ice Cream/Cookie 
Shop 

No. 86-0250 Approving the schematic design for Ice 

Cream/Cookie Shop at entrance to 
Boarding Area 'E' . 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission has previously discussed with 
staff and approved in concept the expansion of the Ice Cream/Cookie 
Shop In the North Terminal, adjacent to Boarding Area 'E'. He said 
that Mr. Art Spring of Host/Marriott is present to answer questions 
and the schematics are available for the Commission's review at the 
end of the meeting. He added that the floor layout and the square 
footage are consistent with what the Commission wanted. 

Mr. Spring explained the schematic design to the Commission. He said 
Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 9 



that the cookie shop Is operated on a subcontract by a minority 
operator. 

Mr. Spring introduced Mr. Clarence Daniels, Host/Marriott's new Vice 
President, whose responsibility it will be to work with Airport staff, 



5. Authorization to Award the Lease of Automatic Teller Machines In the 
North and South Terminal Buildings 

No. 86-0251 Resolution awarding the lease of 

Automatic Teller Machines In the North 
and South Terminal Buildings to 
American Express Travel Related 
Services Co. , Inc. 

Mr. Turpen pointed out that although staff sent 600 invitations to 
bid and 150 announcements to the media only one bid was received. 



Modification to Lease for Operation of Public Lockers to Add Full 
Service Baggage Storage and Other Services 

No. 86-0252 Resolution authorizing the execution 

of Modification No. 3 of the Lease for 
operation of Public Lockers to add 
Full Service Baggage Storage and other 
services . 

Mr. Turpen explained that the Commission accepted a staff recommenda- 
tion for an over-sized, full baggage storage area in the South 
Connector. Staff bid this item and only one bidder, Travel Central, 
responded. He said that that bidder was unable to obtain insurance 
coverage for Its lease operation. The Commission, on September 16, 
1986, terminated the lease due to Travel Central's failure to come up 
with the required Insurance. He said since there was not a great 
deal of Interest from prospective bidders to provide this service 
staff approached AMLOCK, which currently handles all of the baggage 
storage concessions at the Airport. He said that in accordance with 
the terms of AMLOCK' s lease the Commission can negotiate other 
services for them to provide. Staff felt that since AMLOCK already 
handled lockers 1t would be logical for them to handle this type of 
activity under the same conditions that were proposed in the original 
lease. He said that AMLOCK has agreed to over-the-counter baggage 
storage, the sale of packaging material and emergency repair of 
luggage. He explained that this was more of a service activity than 
a revenue generator. 

Mr. Turpen said that since staff has had such limited success In 
attracting bidders It should be pursued 1n this manner for the 
remainder of AMLOCK's lease, which runs for another 2-1/2 years. At 
that time staff can either Incorporate the requirement Into a new 
lease for locker facilities or It can be split again at the expira- 
tion of AMLOCK's lease, when perhaps the environment 1s a little 
different and can support the concept the Commission wants to pursue. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls asked why AMLOCK can get Insurance while the 
other company cannot. 

Ms. Glttens responded that the other company Is a small business and 
this Is a new venture for them. AMLOCK Is an established company In 
the locker business and they have a track record with an Insurance 
company. 

Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 10 



Items 7 and 8 were put over. 

7. Resolution Awarding Lease - Evergreen Airlines 

Resolution awarding the lease of Plots 
42 and 42A to Evergreen Airlines. 

Mr. Turpen said that this item required further review from a 
planning perspective. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he was glad it was going to be reviewed 
because he was not going to vote for it in Its present form. He said 
he did not feel It was right to negotiate with one cargo company and 
not go out to bid. He asked what would prevent Evergreen from 
approaching other airlines to contract with them rather than 
contracting outside. He feared this would Impact local cargo 
handl ing companies. 



8. Resolution to Modify Standard Concession Lease 

Authorization to modify certain 
sections of the standard concession 
lease. 

Mr. Turpen said that there was a language problem that must be 
clarified before staff proceeds. 



Items 9 and 10 were unanimously adopted. 

9. Hours of operation - SFIA Medical Clinic - 90 Day Trial Period 

No. 86-0253 Resolution authorizing the Director to 

Initiate a 90-day trial period in 
which the SFIA Medical Clinic will be 
closed between the hours of 1:00 AM to 
7:00 AM dally. 

Mr. Turpen explained that there is now a paramedic operation housed 
at the Airport and the Fire Department has the capability for 
emergency calls as well. He said that from 1:00 AM to 7:00 AM there 
is virtually no activity at the Airport and suggested closing the 
facility down during those hours on a trial basis. He assured the 
Commission that there would not be an absence of qualified emergency 
personnel at the Airport during those hours. 

Mr. Turpen said that this operation will be rebld in the next couple 
of years and felt It would be appropriate to obtain a data base to 
find out whether the original concept of a 24-hour facility, which 
dates back, to the 1970's, Is appropriate. Mr. Turpen added that 
there Is an average of only 20 calls In a three month period during 
these hours. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the Medical Clinic lease expires 
1n June, 1988 but based on the amount of time It has taken in the 
past to get it moving he would like to get a determination on this 
and then move to start the process. 

Commissioner Goosby said he had a commitment from staff that this 
would be bid when the current lease expires so on that basis he will 
vote for It. He said that when this was first Introduced the 



Minutes, November 18. 1986, Page 11 



operator wanted $100,000 to provide night service and he assumed that 
the Airport will get some monetary consideration since the operator 
will no longer have that expenditure. He felt that the Airport was 
on dangerous ground not bidding this service as there are other very 
competent medical operations In the area. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if we now have paramedics. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the paramedics are a recent addition and we 
are now taking a look at whether or not there Is any need to have a 
Registered Nurse In the Medical Clinic between those hours. He said 
that there Is at least one fire/rescue squad on at night and one or 
two units of paramedics. He felt that with the amount of time it 
took last time to work our way through this a determination should be 
made within the next 90 days and then there should be a move to bid. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that he felt that one of the great things 
about the Airport Is its 24-hour-a-day medical service. 

Mr. Turpen assured the Commission that medical care would not be 
diminished. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he would go along with this for 90-days 
but it was no guarantee that he would agree to it beyond the trial 
period. 

Mr. Turpen explained that if, at any time, he determines that the 
Medical Clinic should resume operating on a 24-hour basis it can be 
reinstituted within 48-hours. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he wants medical attention at the Airport 
and does not want paramedics. 

Mr. Turpen again assured Commissioner Bernstein that medical coverage 
will not be reduced In any way. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he did not want to save money at the 
expense of medical care. 

Mr. Turpen said that he was simply presenting a proposal to the 
Commission. He expressed his concern that if something happened 
during the 90-day trial it would be laid at the feet of the Airport 
Director and staff. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the availability of the paramedics 
is a new factor since this contract was negotiated with the current 
operator so it was worth a 90-day trial to see what happens. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he hoped nothing happened. 



10. Award of Airport Contract No. 1438: 

Reconstruction and Overlay of Taxlway 'F' 

No. 86-0254 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1438 

to O'Grady Paving, Inc., for 
$2,751,057.00. 

Five bids were received on October 15, 
1986 ranging from $2,751,057.00 to 
$3,126,900.00. 

Commissioner Goosby asked If any of these contractors applied for 
Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 12 



MBE, WBE or LBE preference. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities Operations and 
Maintenance, responded that this contract is subject to an FAA grant 
and as such the bid preferences are not in play here. He added that 
there Is a 21 percent minority participation on this contract and 
seven percent WBE. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Items 11 through 16 were unanimously adopted. 

11. Approval of Sublease between American Airlines, Inc. and Wings West 
Alrl ines 

No. 86-0255 Resolution approving the sublease of 

North Terminal office space from 
American Airlines, Inc. by Wings West 
Alrl ines . 



12. Resolution to Consent to Assignment of Agreement from Duty Free 
Shoppers (LAX, Inc.) to Duty Free Shoppers Limited Partnership 

No. 86-0256 Resolution consenting to the assign- 

ment of all leases and permits held by 
Duty Free Shoppers (LAX, Inc.) to Duty 
Free Shoppers, a Delaware limited 
partnership. 



13. Resolution Modifying United Airlines Lease and Use Agreement No. 
82-0126 

No. 86-0257 Resolution modifying United Airlines 

Lease and Use Agreement No. 82-0216 to 
delete the International Terminal 
inter-line ticket counter. 



14. Redesign of 'Forget-Me-Not' Shop in the North Terminal 

No. 86-0258 Resolution approving the redesign of 

the 'Forget-Me-Not' Shop In the North 
Terminal . 



15. Resolution to Remodel the Beverage Facility at the South Rotunda of 
Boarding Area 'B' in the South Terminal 

No. 86-0259 Resolution authorizing the renovation 

of Host beverage facility at the South 
Rotunda of Boarding Area 'B' and 
approving the schematic design for 
said facility. 



Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 13 



16. Transfer of Donated Wall Mural to City's General Art Collection 



No. 86-0260 



Resolution requesting Art Commission 
to transfer tile wall mural donated by 
Gulllermo Wagner Granzo in 1982 from 
Airport's art collection to the City's 
general collection. No appropriate 
space is available for this large 
mural at the Airport. 



Item No. 17 was unanimously adopted as amended. 

17. The Parry Contract 

No. 86-0261 Contract for The Parry Company to 

produce four noise Impact area 
contours to be used on the Quarterly 
Report and at the Airport Roundtable. 
The contract also provides for 
appearances by representatives of The 
Parry Company to substantiate the 
noise contours. ($30,000) 

Mr. Turpen said that this fulfills our State obligation to provide 
noise contours. He explained that The Parry Company takes our noise 
measurements and converts them into a contour map of the noise impact 
boundary. He said that during a discussion with Mr. Parry staff was 
told that it would cost an additional $30,000 to provide professional 
liability Insurance, bringing the contract amount to $60,000. He did 
not feel it was worth doubling the size of the contract just to 
satisfy an Insurance requirement. He recommended approving the 
contract without the professional liability insurance, as has been 
done In the past. Mr. Turpen also told the Commisison that there is 
an indemnification provision in the contact. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was someone on staff who 
monitors this process. 

Mr. Turpen said that a member of staff collects all the noise data, 
which is generated 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year , consolidates it 
and sends it to Mr. Parry and Tracor Labs for development into a 
noise contour. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked why that person couldn't handle this. 

Mr. Turpen responded that It was possible to handle this In-house but 
was concerned about how the community would view the results If the 
Airport developed and verified the numbers, developed the maps, and 
then concluded that there was no noise problem. He said that the 
concern should be for the Airport's credibility not the amount of 
money. He argued that when data is gathered and sent out for 
Independent analysis and formulation our credibility Is above 
reproach. Handling it all In-house would leave us subject to a lot 
of questions. 

Commissioner Bernstein didn't understand why we couldn't handle this 
ln-house and set an example for the rest of the City. 

Mr. Turpen said that If the Commission wanted to handle this In-house 
he would be happy to take a look at It for the future but he 
suggested approving this contract so that we can get our new noise 
contour. 



Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 14 



Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Turpen why he couldn't take a look 
at 1t first. 

Mr. Turpen responded that this Information is sent to the State and 
County as part of the official State requirement that we file noise 
maps with the appropriate agencies. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls said that the Airport would be accused of 
bias If it were handled In-house. 

Commissioner Bernstein still Insisted on taking a look at It first. 

Mr. Turpen said that there 1s a time problem as there are maps that 
are due. 

Commissioner Bernstein suggested sending the Information to him. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls agreed that there Is a legitimate concern. 

Mr. Turpen told Commissioner Bernstein that handling it in-house will 
stl 1 1 cost us money. 

The first vote on this item was 2 to 1 with Commissioner Bernstein 
casting the dissenting vote. 

Mr. Turpen pointed out that we are presently late and failure to 
approve this contract will cause us to come into conflict with State 
law. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls said that the vote was not valid as the 
Parry Contract did not have a motion on the floor. The only motion 
on the floor was on the Consent Calendar. 

Mr. Turpen cautioned the Commission, before a separate vote was taken 
on The Parry Contract, that the Airport did not have the in-house 
capbiHty to do noise contours and cannot develop the capability by 
the time the contours are due since they are presently due. We face 
the spectre of being in violation of the State noise variance by not 
providing the contours on a timely basis. The contours are provided 
to 13 communities, the County and the State and are the basis of our 
entire noise program. He strongly urged the Commission to approve 
the contract and direct staff to take a look at handling it in-house 
in the future, as opposed to reactively denying it and causing the 
Airport $30,000 worth of staff time to determine what to do to comply 
with all of the State requirements that we have ignored. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that he was simply asking that it be 
looked at. 

Mr. Turpen again said that we must get the contours up and the 
problem was time. He said that It may be a $30,000 Item but the 
Implication goes far beyond that and should not be treated casually. 

Commissioner Goosby suggested that the resolution be amended to add 
the requirement that the Commission be provided with a breakdown of 
what It would cost staff to handle this, as well as the Implications. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls asked when the next report is due. 

Mr. George Wong, Acting Airport General Counsel, responded that this 
agreement covers It through December, 1986 and Is due quarterly. The 
next one 1s due March, 1987. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls suggested that an 1n-house operation be 
Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 15 



looked at for the next quarter. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked why a $30,000 item is among things that 
are casual ly passed. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Commission has been approving this item 
since 1975. He said that although it has traditionally been a 
routine administrative item the Commission Is not precluded from 
calling It off the Consent Calendar. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls added that Mr. Turpen did bring It to the 
Commission's attention. 

The Commission gave Its unanimous approval. 



Item 18 was unanimously adopted. 

18. Professional Services Agreement - $25,000 
Sequoia Analytical Laboratory 
Waste Water Testing and Analysis 

No. 86-0262 Proposed resolution approving the 

professional services agreement to 
provide waste water priority 
pollutants testing and soil's 
hydrocarbon content. 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



J. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:02 AM to go into closed session. 



(ia/a* ' 



y/iL 

Jearf Caramattl 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, November 18, 1986, Page 16 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DECEMBER 2, 1986 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAR 3 1987 



PUEUC LIBRARY 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

OR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

December 2, 1986 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 3 

B. ROLL CALL: 3 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

November 4, 1986 86-0274 

Special meeting of 

November 12, 1986 86-0275 



D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1 . Status Report on Carts 3 

2. Status of CalTrans Inter- 
change 4-6 

3. Airline Mergers/Impact on 

Facilities Report 6 

E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 7 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

4. Authorizing Agreement 

for Parking/Transportation 

Management Program 7-12 

5. Month-to-Month Holdover of 
the Leases of Mobile Catering 
1n the Taxi Staging Area of 

the Garage 86-0263 12 

6. Award of Contract No. 1753: 
Underground Storage Tanks - 
Removal & Related Work - 

$249,570.00 86-0264 12 

7. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1656: Replacement of 
Pumps at Industrial Waste 

Pump Station 'C & 'A' 86-0265 12-13 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

8. Retirement Resolution: 

Oscar Nurse 86-0266 13 

9. Retirement Resolution 

Virgil Woods 86-0267 13 

10. Amendment No. 2 to Profess- 
ional Services Agreement: 
Esherick, Homsey, Dodge 
and Davis/Robert B. Wong - 
Extension of Time at No 

Additional Cost 86-0268 13 

11. Request for Approval of 
Travel/Training for 
Airports Commission 

Representatives 86-0269 13 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 13 



I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 13 



Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

December 2, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 9:00 
A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 
Present: 



Morris Bernstein, President 
Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 
Don Richards Stephens 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

No. 86-0274 
No. 86-0275 



Regular meeting of November 4, 1986; 
Special meeting of November 12, 1986 



D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1 . Status Report on Carts - Oral Report 

Mr. Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that he did not 
anticipate any further impediments on providing free carts in the 
international arrivals area. The confusion of two weeks ago has been 
cleared up and it is expected that the Finance Committee will move 
the Commission's request to approve carts at tomorrow's meeting. He 
said that a supplemental should clear channels normally. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, told 
the Commission that the anticipated start-up date is January 1st. 

Mr. Turpen said that if there are no further delays staff will begin 
processing the supplemental. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked Mr. Turpen if he expected it to pass. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he had no reason to suspect that it would 
not. 



Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 3 



2. Status of CalTrans Interchange. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that there is a new on-ramp leading 
onto the Airport from northbound Highway 101 as well as a new on-ramp 
onto to southbound Highway 101 from the Airport. Last Wednesday 
CalTrans opened up the viaduct, connecting the Airport with Highways 
380 and 280 without a merge onto Highway 101. This was accomplished 
approximately six months ahead of schedule as a result of the 
Airport's priority request. He explained that the Airport had a 
problem with traffic merging between the Airport Interchange and 
Highway 380. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that staff also asked CalTrans to look, 
at the possibility of a fifth lane on Highway 101 beween the Airport 
Interchange up to San Bruno and to the 380 Interchange. He said that 
CalTrans has evaluated the request and agreed to provide that fifth 
lane. 

Mr. Turpen said that the highway handles 1200 vehicles per hour per 
lane during certain times of the day and the additional lane will 
greatly benefit the Airport. We are pleased and very grateful to 
CalTrans for expediting the schedule for the Airport. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the fifth lane is In addition to 
the viaduct. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there is a total of five lanes on the 
highway and two on the viaduct for a total of seven lanes in that 
stretch, where previously there were four. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how much more work CalTrans will do before 
they start cutting through the West of Bayshore property. He knew 
that a study on the snakes must first be completed and asked if that 
is the only thing holding them up and how much longer before they can 

begin. 

Mr. Turpen responded that CalTrans will not start until the Airport 
files an environmentally approved Master Plan. 

Mr. Turpen said that CalTrans originally envisioned that the West of 
Bayshore property would be connected with the main Airport property 
by a road from the Airport to the West of Bayshore, behind the 
Airport Hilton. That would have required getting off at Millbrae 
Avenue, coming down the Frontage Road, taking the overpass to access 
the West of Bayshore property, coming back across, circling around 
the Airport roadway system and around the gas station in order to get 
back on northbound Highway 101. He said that would have been very 
inefficient and would compromise the attractiveness of the develop- 
ment of the West of Bayshore. During negotiations CalTrans agreed to 
drop that overpass and give us credit for it. What the Commission is 
now seeing is a proposed West of Bayshore access plan where there 
would be an overpass coming onto the West of Bayshore, northbound. 

Mr. Turpen explained that there will be some Incremental money 
involved from the Airport's perspective because we will only receive 
credit for that portion of the original plan which involved that 
single overpass from the Hilton. In effect, the Commisson will be 
buying a second overpass. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if we will have to pay additional money. 

Mr. Turpen said that was his understanding. 



Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 4 



Commissioner Fleishell asked how we could pay in view of the fact 
that the Lease and Use Agreement states that the Airport cannot spend 
money on the West of Bayshore. 

Mr. Turpen responded that any development of the West of Bayshore 
requires a modification of the Lease and Use Agreement. He said that 
he has talked to the airlines and they have indicated that as long as 
the revenue for West of Bayshore goes through the Airport groundside 
cost center they would not object to modifying the agreement. 

Mr. Turpen said that due to the premium on land on the Peninsula many 
of the long-term parking lots could close. If the Airport can 
capture that long term parking and consolidate it on a part of the 
West of Bayshore property there will be a significant increase in 
revenue to the Airport. He said that the airlines see it as an 
attractive way of starting to defray the cost. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the Airport negotiated this agree- 
ment with the airlines and the whole idea of separating that piece of 
land and giving it to the City as distinct from the Airport was to 
give that revenue to the City's General Fund. He said that he hoped 
someone will let the Mayor know what the Airport proposes to do. If 
the revenue is sent back to the Airport there is no point in trans- 
ferring the land. 

Mr. Turpen said that Dean Macris of City Planning did a study in 
which the Airport participated, after which a recommendation was made 
to the Mayor indicating that the most logical course was to have the 
Airport develop the property. He said that the revenue flow from 
that property was anticipated at 15X of concession revenues as 
opposed to a direct revenue flow to the City. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the Garter Snake study was in its last 
year. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that study has been completed. He added 
then when a plan is developed mitigation alternatives will have to be 
addressed. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if recommendations have been made. 

Mr. Sheldon Fein, Landside Operation, responded that they have 
completed their study but not their final report. Staff is expecting 
to receive it within the next 30 to 60 days. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the development of the West of Bayshore 
is one of the Mayor's priority items and since she is entering her 
last year in office we should at least be at the point of an initial 
recommendation. 

Commissioner Stephens asked who the Airport was working with on the 
land use. 

Mr. Yuen responded that it was Daniel, Mann, Johnson, and 
Mendenhall. He said that they have done about 25 airport master 
plans. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if they were familiar with commercial 

development. He said there is a northbound access from the Airport 

to 380 without going onto 101, and asked if there would be a separate 

roadway coming from 380 to the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there will be a direct access onto the 
Airpor* that will tie Into the existing ramp. One lane will come 



Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 5 



from 101 and one lane will come from 380 onto the Airport ramp. The 
380 lane will also split off to serve the West of Bayshore and there 
will be some interface there for Highway 101. 

Commissioner Stephens concluded that it will then be separate from 
101 where as now they are all merging together. 

Mr. Turpen added that the 380 connection with Highway 101 is 
currently past the Airport which adds to the congestion. That 
traffic will remain on this spur past the main interchange of the 
Airport and will then merge onto Highway 101 beyond the interchange. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there were still 94 acres. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there are 190 acres of which about 90 are 
prime and usable; the remainder is usable in a restricted sense. He 
said that North of the interchange is a large triangular area which 
contains about 90 usable acres; South of the interchange, toward 
Mi 1 1 brae , is an irregular parcel punctuated by utility easements and 
fuel lines. 



3. Airline Mergers/Impact on Facilities - Oral Report 

Mr. Turpen said that there have been mergers between Northwest and 
Republic Airlines, Delta and Western, and now AirCal and American. 
He said that originally Northwest Airlines was to move to the new 
Boarding Area 'C, along with Delta and AirCal. Northwest has since 
indicated that they want to remain on Boarding Area 'C, however, 
they are currently operating in two locations, a domestic operation 
from Boarding Area 'A', Republic's space, and, they are operating 
their international operations from the International Terminal, as is 
the Commission's policy. Delta was scheduled to move from its 
current location with American Airlines to Boarding Area 'C, when it 
opens. Delta has now indicated that they are looking at either 
consolidating with Western Airlines on Boarding Area 'E' or taking 
Western with them to Boarding Area 'C. Lastly, AirCal was scheduled 
to move to Boarding Area 'C but they have indicated they may want to 
remain in their current location, adjacent to American Airlines, 
because of American's recent purchase of AirCal. 

Mr. Turpen said that what this all means is that after these 
discussions take place and the facilities issue settles down the 
Airport should be able to recapture gate facilities, probably in the 
South Terminal. Those facilities will then be made available to 
current airlines who presently do not have any facilities in other 
than a sublease situation. 

Mr. Turpen called the Commission's attention to Continental's 
activity with People's Express and Eastern Airlines. He said they 
petitioned us for some type of consolidation and they would be a 
likely candidate for any space that might open up. He felt it 
important that the Commission recognize that at the end of all these 
moves our facilities will be fully utilized and he did not think that 
any of these consolidations would result in any surplus of terminal 
facilities at the Airport. 



Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 6 



E. ITEMS INITATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was put over. 

4. Authorizing Agreement for Parking/Transporation Management Program 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission has a November 4 letter signed by 
Mr. Bouey. He said that Mr. Fein is present to respond to any 
additional questions the Commission might have. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if this was the proposed employee carpool 
operation. 

Mr. Fein responded that it is. He explained that the Airport was 
trying to reduce the traffic and parking demand at the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen mentioned that Commissioner Bernstein had asked earlier 
how this fit in with what staff is doing on the Master Plan. Mr. 
Turpen responded that the Master Plan is addressing the problem of 
parking on a long term basis, but recognizing the Airport won't have 
an approved EIR for another 14 months, this is an interim program 
until such time as the appropriate facilities can be developed. 

Commissioner Tougarakis assumed that the Master Plan would 
incorporate the notion of carpool ing. 

Mr. Turpen responded that if this program goes forward and is 
successful it will be factored into the calculations. If the program 
doesn't go forward that too would be factored into any facilities we 
anticipate building. 

Commissioner Flei shell said that carpool s have been around for years 
and was surprised that the Airport has done nothing about it. He 
suggested offering economic incentives such as if there are four 
people in a car, they park for free; three people in a car, a 
dollar. He asked Mr. Turpen why nothing like that has been done and 
why we need an expert to tell us what we already ought to know. 

Mr. Fein responded that we only control a small amount of the parking 
space on the Airport; the tenants control a much larger amount. He 
said that part of this program would include working with, all of the 
tenants. The rates can be raised for the people who park within our 
own facilities and were, in fact, raised to $42.00 per quarter. He 
said that this is a big increase over what they were paying before 
but it is still less than a dollar a day. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he was not talking about raising the 
rates but rather lowering the rates for people who share in a carpool. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that the Airport controls very few 
of the total spaces. 

Commissioner Stephens asked what was meant by "controlling" spaces. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport has an employee parking lot 
which many people utilize. The airlines, especially the larger 



Minutes. December 2, 1986, Page 7 



airlines, each have their own parking area and those collectively 
make up a much greater portion of parking at the Airport than that 
portion which the Airport controls. 

Commissioner Stephens said that the numbers we are then talking about 
include all the combined employee parking. . .ours, United's, TWA's, 
etc. 

Mr. Turpen said that was correct. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if all the airlines charged the same fee. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he did not believe the airlines charged 
their employees for parking. 

Mr. Fein added that several airlines have union agreements which 
include provisions for free employee parking; some airlines may have 
a minimum fee. 

Commissioner Stephens concluded that discussions on rate increases 
refer only to parking lots controlled by the Airport. 

Mr. Fein responded yes. He said that those people being effected 
would be Airport Commission employees and those employees working for 
the small operators in the terminal complex, such as the shoeshine 
operations, barber shop, the flower stand and others unable to 
provide their own parking facilities on the Airport. 

Commissioner Stephens asked why we don't follow Commissioner 

Flei shell's suggestion of offering economic incentives to employees 

who park in the lots we control. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what techniques, other than carpooling, 
this management group will employ. 

Mr. Fein responded that RIDES has done individual studies for United, 
Delta and Pan Am and has worked with those carriers to try and 
minimize their parking impact. This plan would put together 
vanpooling and rides programs from information merged from the 
airlines and tenants throughout the Airport. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what incentive there would be for an 
employee to opt for a ride sharing program if the employer charged a 
nominal fee or did not charge a fee at all. 

Commissioner Stephens agreed with Commissioner Tsougarakis. He said 
that if United Airlines has to give their employees free parking 
there is no point in having the number of people they park in the 
database. He said that since we don't have any effect on .them why 
pay someone to put all this information together; it's not going to 
tell us anything we don't know now when it's all done. 

Mr. Fein added that RIDES will not only put the Information together 
but they will group those employees interested in the program into 
vans and carpools. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that if her employer was willing to let 
her have a free parking space, why should she subject herself to 
riding in a carpool and being constricted on time. 

Mr. Turpen said that the problem 1s that there 1s an assumption that 
space avai lable. 

Mr. Fein said he has been receiving calls from airlines Indicating 
Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 8 



they do not have enough parking and asking if their employees could 
park in our lots. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the airlines have told their 
employees they are going to have to give up their space, or, that 
they will have to start paying. 

Mr. Turpen felt that since the Commission obviously was not 
interested in this matter it should be withdrawn but he felt it 
important for the Commission to understand that the parking lots are 
controlled by the major carriers as well as the Airport. He said 
that many of the carriers with a surplus capacity make subtenant 
parking arrangements with other carriers and charge perhaps $20.00 a 
month per employee. As the Airport grows the employee volume grows; 
and, as gas prices go down and employees decide to drive their own 
cars the need for parking spaces increases dramatically. In 
addition, because of the closure of off-Airport parking lots, the 
demand for long-term economy parking is increased. He explained that 
the long-term economy parking lot is adjacent to the employee parking 
lot and any savings would allow us to relieve capacity in that lot. 
The large airlines, needing space, have put their subtenant users out 
and recommended they talk to the Airport but the Airport does not 
have sufficient parking capacity for everyone wanting a parking space. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she felt the RIDES system was a good 
one and had no objection to it but felt that until those employees 
using their automobiles feel pushed they will not opt for ride 
sharing. She felt that they will only feel pushed when the airlines 
start telling their employees that parking is not available and they 
will either have to start paying or find an alternative. 

Mr. Turpen said that the other alternative is to continue to allow 
the demand to build up to a point where the situation is so 
uncomfortable that they elect to do something else. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the situation can be forced rather 
than waiting for it to happen. 

Mr. Turpen felt that it can only be forced to a degree because the 
Airport does not control all the parking spaces. He said that the 
Airport is trying to act in the roll of expeditor and bring all the 
parties together. He felt that experience indicates the program does 
work. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if staff has talked to the airlines. 

Mr. Fein responded that the airlines have not been approached on this 
particular program. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the airlines should be approached 
before the Commission takes a vote. 

Mr. Fein said that three of the airlines have used RIDES and have 
gotten their employees to join either the carpooling or the computer- 
based program. 

Commissioner Stephens said that If the airlines control parking and 
that parking is subject to their collective bargaining agreements, 
what does the airline charge for that portion that is not covered. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the airlines essentially will provide 
parking free of charge and if there is some kind of fee he is not 
aware of it. In many cases if employees of tenants use an Airport 
lot the tenant will pay the parking fee to the Airport. 



Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 9 



Mr. Turpen said that the problem is that we are talking about 25,000 
to 30,000 employees at the Airport and about 2200 acres. 

Mr. Fein added that there are currently about 13,000 parking spaces. 

Mr. Turpen again told the Commission that the Airport is trying to 
act as the focal point in putting together a carpool program which 
will encompass all employees at the Airport. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if the airlines will start charging their 
employees . 

Mr. Fein responded that since the airlines have run out of space they 
began renting space in the off-airport parking lots and that impacts 
the amount of space available for passengers using the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff can discuss this with the airlines at the 
budget review meeting next week. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that this should be taken off the 
calendar. 

Mr. Turpen said that if the airlines don't support the concept it 
could always be thrown out. 

Mr. Bernstein said he did not understand the crunch. 

Mr. Turpen said that there is no question about the fact that we have 
a parking problem. He said that it is obvious that the Commission is 
relunctant to move ahead with this matter and he suggested that staff 
check with the airlines since they will be footing the bill. If the 
airlines feel this is a good idea then he felt it should be pursued. 
If the airlines don't think it is a good idea then it can be 
withdrawn. If the Commission does not agree with his suggestion they 
can vote this item down and it will be a dead issue. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the Commission runs the Airport, not 
the airlines, and there are many things the airlines support that the 
Commission does not. He felt that if the Airport just wants to be 
the focal point this should be discussed with the people upon whom we 
wish to focus. He suggested that the Airport should set the example 
and start a carpool operation by using economic incentives. He said 
there is nothing complex about the proposed program and we should not 
have to hire anyone to handle it for us. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she would agree with Commissioner 
Fleishell if there were an economic example to set but the airlines 
are already giving their employees free parking. 

Mr. Turpen felt that it is obvious the Commission is not for it so 
they should just vote the matter down and that would end it. 

Commissioner Stephens said he would like staff to return at the next 
meeting with a program that would offer incentives to employees 
utilizing the parking lots that the Airport controls. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport controls 1,200 spaces out of 13,000. 
He said that Commissioner Fleishell 's suggestion was fine for the 
Golden Gate Bridge but on a management basis he had a problem with 
offering an incentive when payment is made on a four-week basis. He 
said you would have to take fees from employees on a daily basis. 

He said he did not know how much more Incentive the Airport could 
offer other than the current $42.00-a-quarter fee. 



Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 10 



Commissioner Tsougarakis said the airlines will become a part of the 
problem when they are restricted to using their spaces. 

Commissioner Goosby said he was not in favor of killing this issue 
and wanted further discussion on it. He said that the questions 
raised by the Commission should be addressed, such as what alterna- 
tives, other than carpooling, are offered by this company. He also 
felt that the cost should be added to the resolution. He asked 1f 
staff had the expertise to handle some or all of 1t in-house and 1f 
it would be cheaper on that basis or if it would make sense, 
politically and economically, to have an outside operator working 
with these different entities. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis understood that RIDES representatives were 
present and asked how many employees have gone to carpooling for the 
three airlines they are working with, and, what has been the 
incentive. 

Ms. Eunice Valentine of RIDES responded that she did not have a 
number broken down for the three airlines. She said that RIDES 
currently serves about 10,000 customers in their customer data base 
from around the Bay Area. They match people up with their origin and 
destination as close as they can. She said that in a situation like 
the Airport they would work with all of the 70 companies represented 
and put together a program and an on-site service delivery that would 
include selling transit passes to the airlines, and forming carpools 
and van pools that would include employees from other companies. She 
said that they also work out incentives in terms of advising on the 
parking situation for employees. She said that they were currently 
doing this in the Civic Center area of San Jose but that it was a 
slightly different situation than the Airport's because their 
employees are more concentrated than the Airport's. She said they 
would be working on a total transportation plan to provide on-site 
services. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked Ms. Valentine if they were doing 
anything with the airlines. 

Ms. Valentine responded that they are. She said that twice a year 
RIDES returns to the company and provides their typical free service, 
which includes a promotional campaign. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if anyone has signed up. 

Ms. Valentine responded that several hundred people at the Airport 
have signed up. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if incentives would be offered. 

Ms. Valentine responded that incentives are being offered more and 
more on a stress-reduction basis. She said that for the 4th year in 
a row the California poll indicates that Bay Area residents feel 
transportation is the No. 1 problem. She said that many people 
calling RIDES are motivated more and more by stress and the traffic 
problem as well as the parking problem. She said that there is no 
question that the motivation is economic but lifestyle factors are 
coming into play more and more. She said that the motivation used to 
relate to gas prices. 

Ms. Valentine said that when her company provides consistent on-site 
service delivery the response and the results skyrocket. She said 
that is what they are experiencing at the San Jose Civic Center. 



Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 11 



Commissioner Tsougarakis said that although she felt it was a good 
idea she wanted to hear from the airlines before a decision is made. 

Commissioner Goosby said this could be tabled until the Commission's 
concerns have been addressed. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the Commission would be ignoring a 
serious problem if they voted it down. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed and said he did not see a need to vote It 
down. He made a motion to table the issue. 

The Commission agreed to take the item off calendar. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

5. Month-to-Month Holdover of the Leases of Mobile Catering in the 
Taxi Staging Area of the Garage 

No. 86-0263 Resolution approving month-to-month 

holdover tenancies of the leases of 
the Mobile Catering in the Taxi 
Staging Area of the Garage. 



Award of Airport Contract No. 1753: 

Underground Storage Tanks - Removal & Related Work - $249,570.00 

No. 86-0264 



Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1656: 

Replacement of Pumps at Industrial Waste Pump Station 'C and 'A' 

No. 86-0265 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1656 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 
The purpose of the contract is to 
replace deteriorating pumps at 
Industrial Waste Pump Station 'C and 
'A' . 

Contract time is 120 days. 

Commissioner Bernstein noticed that there was only one bid. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director of Facilities Operations and 
Maintenance, responded that this was just a bid call. He said that 
these items are usually placed on the Consent Calendar but because 
the Commission complained that they were seeing them for the first 
time they have been moved to A0M. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked If in situations like this where the 
pump is being replaced, are reconditioned pumps, costing half the 
price, are ever purchased. 



Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 12 



Mr. Bouey responded that staff has looked at that, however, in this 
instance the answer is no. He explained that these particular pumps 
take a severe beating because of the nature of the effluent going 
through them. He said that of these two pumps, one is to be located 
near TWA and the other near United. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 

8. Retirement Resolution for Oscar Nurse 
No. 86-0266 

9. Retirement Resolution for Virgil Woods 
No. 86-0267 



10. Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement 
Esherick, Homsey, Dodge and Davis/Robert B. Wong 
Extension of Time at No Additional Cost 

No. 86-0268 



11. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 86-0269 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:45 AM to go into closed session. 




>andra fcfumpTer y^ < 
Acting Commission Secretary 



Minutes, December 2, 1986, Page 13 






SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DECEMBER 16, 1986 



MAR 3 19s- 

SAN FRAN' 
PU£LICLIL..~. 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

OR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

December 16, 1986 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

B. ROLL CALL: 

C ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. Authorization to Receive Bids 
for International Terminal & 
South Terminal Shoeshine 

Leases 86-0276 

2. Award of Contract No. 1752: 
Maintenance Building Rooding - 
Republic Airlines Hangar 



E. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

3. Settlement of Unlitigated 
Claim of City & County of 
San Francisco against Paul 
Stange 1n the Amount of 

$9,997.38 86-0277 3 

4. Transfer Miscellaneous 
Electrical Work from Contract 
1416AB-R (Boarding Area 'C to 
Contract 1410EF (South Terminal 
Renovation Phase II) - No Change 

in Total Cost of Contracts 86-0278 3 

5. Retirement Resolution for Sam 

Parker 86-0279 3 

6. Retirement Resolution for Paula 

Thomas 86-0280 3 



CORRESPONDENCE: 

Cart Design 3-4 

Commission Attendance at 

National Conferences 4 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 
SESSION: 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

December 16, 1986 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca . 



ROLL CALL: 
Present 



J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z.L. Goosby 
Athena TsougaraMs 
Don Richards Stephens 

Morris Bernstein, President, arrived 
at 9:15 AM. 



C. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 
Item No. 1 was unanimously adopted. 



Authorization to Receive Bids for International Terminal and South 
Terminal Shoeshine Leases 



No. 86-0276 



Resolution approving leasehold 
specifications and authorizing 
Director to receive bids for: 

International Terminal Shoeshine 

Lease; 

South Terminal Shoeshine Lease 



Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that an 
evaluation of the liability coverage of independent contractors was 
made and included in the report. 



Item No. 2 was put over. 

Award of Contract No. 1752: 

Maintenance Building Roofing - Republic Airlines Hangar 



Resolution awarding Contract No. 1752 
to Royal Roofing Co., Inc. in the 
amount of $89,980.00 to $149,000.00. 

Eight bids were received on November 
26, 1986 with amount ranging from 
$89,980.00 to $149,000.00. 



E. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

3. Settlement of Unlitigated Claim of City and County of San Francisco 
Against Paul Stange in the Amount of $9,997.38 

No. 86-0277 Resolution approving settlement of 

unlitigated claim of City and County 
of San Francisco against Paul Stange 
whereby Paul Stange has repaired the 
North Terminal to the satisfaction of 
Airport Commission at a cost of 
$9,997.38. 



Transfer Miscellaneous Electrical Work from Contract 1416AB-R 
(Boarding Area 'C') to Contract 1410EF (South Terminal Renovation 
Phase II) - No Change in Total Cost of Contracts 

No. 86-0278 Contract 1416AB-R will be debited 

$50,000 anc Contract 1410EF will be 
credited the same amount. The 
transfer is necessary for better 
coordination of the trades. 



5. Retirement Resolution for Sam Parker 
No. 86-0279 

6. Retirement Resolution for Paula Thomas 
No. 86-0280 



F. CORRESPONDENCE: 

Mr. Turpen said that he has received a letter from Smarte Carte regarding 
the new model 1035 cart which 1s an L-shaped design. 

Minutes, December 16, 1986. Page 3 



Commissioner Flei shell commented that the Commission has explained the 
design it wants to Smarte Carte. He asked Mr. Turpen to talk to Mr. 
Pastian and tell him that this design is not acceptable to the Commission 
and staff is not to waste time on it. 



Commissioner Goosby expressed an interest in members of the Commission 
attending national conferences. He asked If the Mayor still had a policy 
that Commission members not attend conferences on City business. If this 
was the case he thought it was an unfortunate policy as he felt It 
important that Commissioners be current with Issues 1n the industry. 



H. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:20 AM to go into closed session. 




Sandra Crumpler 

Acting Commission Secretary 



Minutes, December 16, 1986, Page 4